Martin v. Stone

CourtFlorida Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCHAPMAN; SEBRING
Citation51 So.2d 33
Decision Date23 February 1951
PartiesMARTIN v. STONE.

Page 33

51 So.2d 33
MARTIN

v.
STONE.
Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
Feb. 23, 1951.
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1951.

Page 34

Sanders & McEwan, Orlando, for appellant.

M. W. Wells of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

The plaintiff-appellant, Emily Hayes Martin, in her declaration alleged that on the 20th day of February, 1949, at about 8:15 P.M., Guy C. Stone, Jr., was operating defendant's automobile in the vicinity of East Colonial Drive and Orange Avenue in Orlando, Florida, and at the time and place she was walking on North Orange Avenue at the intersection of said street and had entered North Orange Avenue on a green signal. When she had progressed several feet at the said crossing the said Guy Christian Stone, Jr., operating the car of his father * * * turned from East Colonial Drive into North Orange Avenue and negligently and carelessly ran and propelled the car in and upon the plaintiff. As a result of being struck by the automobile the plaintiff was severely and grievously injured.

The case went to the jury on pleas: (1) not quilty and (2) the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-appellant in the sum of $10,000 and the trial court set the verdict of the jury aside and granted a new trial. The order granting a new trial recited: (1) the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (2) the verdict is contrary to law; (3) the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence; (4) the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Instructions identified as 14 and 16 the trial court concluded were erroneous. From this order plaintiff perfected an appeal to this Court.

It is the settled law in this State that a motion for new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial Court. A stronger showing is required to reverse an order granting a new trial than one denying it. A legal presumption exists that the new trial was by the trial Court properly granted. When a trial court grants a new trial upon a motion which contains several grounds, then the review in this Court will be restricted to the grounds recited in the order granting the new trial. In the case at bar the motion below was granted on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 and 16. Blue & Gray Cab Co. v. Lowe, 143 Fla. 129, 196 So. 425.

Ground 1 of the order granting the new trial is viz.: The verdict is contrary to the evidence. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, at the time and place stated in the declaration, was passing from the west to the east side of North Orange Avenue (on a green light) where it intersects Colonial Drive. She had approached the center of Orange Avenue when struck by the defendant's car. She was removed from this point in the street and taken to her hotel and after being X-rayed it was learned that her left hip bone was broken and she suffered excruciating pains and was hospitalized for about three months. Miss Martin testified that the car driven by Guy C. Stone, Jr., struck her and knocked her down, and as a result her hip was broken.

Guy C. Stone, Jr., the driver of the car, testified that he did not strike the plaintiff with the car at the intersection but saw her in the street, applied the brakes and brought the car to a stop about three feet before reaching her. He admitted that Miss Martin fell to the pavement after he applied the brakes and prior to his getting out of the car and going to where she was sitting on the pavement. Stone's two companions riding on the front seat of the car corroborated his story and stoutly contended that the car did not strike the plaintiff, and one of plaintiff's witnesses testified that the car did not strike the plaintiff,--the theory of defense being that the plaintiff at the time and place fell and injured herself and for this reason there could be no recovery against the defendant.

This theory of the defense was sharply contradicted by the testimony of the physician called to treat the plaintiff. When confronted with this idea, the attending physician expressed the view that a fall to the ground alone would not have produced the injuries and broken bond in the plaintiff's hip, which required hospitalization from February until May and afterwards she suffered pain and used a crutch to walk with. For several months after the

Page 35

injury she was unable to walk. It was the physician's opinion that a fall to the pavement as contended could not produce such injuries as were sustained by the plaintiff. Miss Martin testified that the automobile hit her and knocked her down. Disputes and conflicts in the testimony, under our system of administering justice, are for the jury under appropriate instructions. See Davis v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 149 Fla. 678, 6 So.2d 842.

It is settled law that if there appears in the record substantial competent evidence in support of the verdict rendered, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, No. 30990
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 28, 1961
    ...as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone, supra [Fla., 51 So.2d 33], Turner v. Frey, supra [Fla., 81 So.2d 721, 722], Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla., 86 So.2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. ......
  • Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, No. 587
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 16, 1959
    ...in resolving conflicts in the evidence or in deciding between conflicting inferences in the same testimony. Martin v. Stone, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 33; White v. E. Levy & Sons, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 142; Tip Top Grocery Co. v. Wellner, 135 Fla. 518, 186 So. 219; Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 18......
  • Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., No. 38810
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1970
    ...as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone, supra (Fla., 51 So.2d 33); Turner v. Frey, supra (Fla., 81 So.2d 721, 722); Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla., 86 So.2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. ......
  • Dunne By and Through Dunne v. Somoano, No. 87-1272
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 13, 1989
    ...may not be granted if there is any evidence to support the position of the party moved against), or grant a new trial. Martin v. Stone, 51 So.2d 33 (Fla.1951) (disputes and conflicts in testimony are jury questions and if evidence appears in the record to support verdict rendered, trial cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, No. 30990
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 28, 1961
    ...as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone, supra [Fla., 51 So.2d 33], Turner v. Frey, supra [Fla., 81 So.2d 721, 722], Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla., 86 So.2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. ......
  • Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig, No. 587
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 16, 1959
    ...in resolving conflicts in the evidence or in deciding between conflicting inferences in the same testimony. Martin v. Stone, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 33; White v. E. Levy & Sons, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 142; Tip Top Grocery Co. v. Wellner, 135 Fla. 518, 186 So. 219; Seaver v. Stratton, 133 Fla. 18......
  • Hodge v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., No. 38810
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1970
    ...as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record, Martin v. Stone, supra (Fla., 51 So.2d 33); Turner v. Frey, supra (Fla., 81 So.2d 721, 722); Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Fla., 86 So.2d 792; Florida Publishing Co. v. ......
  • Dunne By and Through Dunne v. Somoano, No. 87-1272
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 13, 1989
    ...may not be granted if there is any evidence to support the position of the party moved against), or grant a new trial. Martin v. Stone, 51 So.2d 33 (Fla.1951) (disputes and conflicts in testimony are jury questions and if evidence appears in the record to support verdict rendered, trial cou......
  • 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