Mansell v. Eidge

Decision Date02 November 1965
Docket NumberNos. 65-1,64-1078,s. 65-1
Citation179 So.2d 624
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesHarold Stuyvesant MANSELL, a minor, by his father and next friend, Paul L. Mansell, Jr., Paul L. Mansell, Jr., and Eleanor A. Mansell, Individually, Appellants, v. Frank D. EIDGE, Appellee. Frank D. EIDGE, Appellant, v. Harold Stuyvesant MANSELL, a minor, by his father and next friend, Paul A. Mansell, Jr., Paul A. Mansell, individually, and Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, a New York corporation, Appellees.

Wicker, Amith, Blomqvist, Hinckley & Davant and Leland E. Stansell, Miami, for the Mansells.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl and Edward J. Atkins, Miami, for Southern Bell.

Sams, Anderson, Alper & Spencer, and Sam Daniels, Miami, for Eidge.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

By these consolidated appeals, review is sought of two orders granting new trials.

It appeals from the record that the appellant, Eidge, while proceeding south on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys, came over a bridge or viaduct with a rise or 'hump' in the middle thereof, and was caused to bring his automobile to a stop because the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company was installing telephone cable in the area. Its equipment completely blocked the southbound lane lane of traffic and was on the southern half of the bridge. After Eidge had come to a complete stop, he was struck in the rear by an automobile operated by the Mansells' driver, which automobile was travelling in the same direction as Eidge within the speed limit, with the vehicle under control. Mansells' driver testified that because of the rise or hump' in the bridge, he was unable to see the obstruction caused by Southern Bell or the Eidge car in time to prevent the collision, although he did apply his brakes. Southern Bell had certain warning signs on the northern approach to the bridge on the right-hand shoulder which indicated 'men working'. There was also other equipment of Southern Bell to the right of the bridge in the immediate vicinity of the 'men working' signs, and the driver of the Mansell car testified that he observed a Southern Bell lineman on a pole adjacent to the bridge on the right. There was one flagman, employed by Southern Bell, at the scene who had stopped Eidge's car and who, at the moment of impact, was in the process of controlling traffic in the northbound lane, which was the only means of passing the obstruction caused by Southern Bell. Upon Eidge being struck in the rear by the Mansell car, he was driven into the northbound lane and struck by a second automobile which was travelling in the northbound direction, and Eidge's next recollection was some five days later when he awakened in the hospital.

Certain of this evidence was susceptible to different inferences in the trial court, but at this stage of the proceedings the jury verdict is entitled to all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence and the presumption is in favor of its correctness. See: Busbee v. Quarrier, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 17; Goodis v. Finkelstein, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 400. Prior to the case being submitted to the jury, the trial judge instructed them that they must return a verdict in favor of Frank D. Eidge in the following language:

* * *

* * *

'I have determined as a matter of law that the plaintiff Frank D. Eidge is entitled to recover damages and you are instructed to return a verdict in his favor. It is your duty now to determine which of the defendants was negligent or whether both defendants were negligent. In other words, the only questions before you now are the amount of damages to which Mr. Eidge is entitled and whether one or both defendants were guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of his injuries.'

* * *

* * *

Thereafter, the jury returned the verdict exonerating the Mansells from liability and holding Southern Bell responsible to the plaintiff Frank D. Eidge. Subsequently, upon a motion for new trial by Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, the trial court granted same upon the following ground:

* * *

* * *

'* * * that the verdict is contrary to the law and contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.'

* * *

* * *

And, on its own motion, the trial court granted a new trial in favor of Frank D. Eidge on the verdict exonerating the Mansells in the following language:

* * *

* * *

'The Court is of the opinion that the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendants Harold Stuyvesant Mansell, a minor, by his father and next friend, Paul L. Mansell, Jr., and Paul L. Mansell, Jr. and Eleanor A. Mansell, individually, is also contrary to the law and the manifest weight of the evidence * * *.'

* * *

* * *

Frank D. Eidge has taken an appeal from the order granting a new trial to Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company in Case No. 65-1. The Mansells have taken an appeal from the order granting a new trial to Eidge from the verdict exonerating them in Case No. 64-1078. The causes were consolidated for all appeal purposes.

We find error in the rulings of the trial court and reverse both orders granting new trials and reestablish the verdicts of the juries. It is with a great deal of reluctance that any appellant court interferes with a trial judge's order granting a new trial. See: Lyons v. Grappo, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 46; Cobb v. Brew Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 814. However, when the record contains evidence which will support the verdict and there is no prejudice or mistake involved which would invalidate same, an appellate court will reverse an order granting new trial. See: McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1960, 123 So.2d 339; Jacksonville Expressway Authority v. Bennett, fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 307; Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 916; Bailey v. Sympson, fla.App.1963, 148 So .2d 729; Cobb v. Brew, supra; Gibson v. Frierson, Fla.App...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Ward v. Orange Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1966
    ...discretion is indicated. See Cobb v. Brew, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 814. See also Russo v. Clark, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 1; Mansell v. Eidge, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 624; Park v. Belford Trucking Co., Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 819; Bell v. Tarvin, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 300; Bailey v. Sympson, F......
  • Danek v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1966
    ...trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial upon the mentioned condition. * * *' (Emphasis added). In Mansell v. Eidge, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 624, 627, the court '* * * However, when the record contains evidence which will support the verdict and there is no prejudice or m......
  • Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1985
    ...judge. McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 123 So.2d 339 (Fla.1960); Cobb v. Brew, 155 So.2d 814 (Fla.App. 1st, 1963); Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So.2d 624 (Fla.App. 3d 1965); and Florida Power Corporation v. Smith, 202 So.2d 872 (Fla.App. 2d When a trial judge grants a motion for remittitur based ......
  • Gettinger v. Americana Hotel of Bal Harbour, Inc., 77-388
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 1978
    ...Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla.1970); Hanson v. Florida East Coast Railway, 334 So.2d 63 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Mansell v. Eidge, 179 So.2d 624 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Clark v. Russo, 133 So.2d 764 (Fla.2d DCA 1961), cert. discharged 147 So.2d 1 (Fla.1962); Mow v. F. P. Sadowski Corp., 122 So.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT