New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs
| Decision Date | 07 November 1956 |
| Parties | NEW DEAL CAB COMPANY, a corporation, and City of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, Appellants, v. Irene V. STUBBS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rogers, Towers, Bailey & Jones, Jacksonville, for New Deal Cab company.
Dwight E. Ogier, Jacksonville, for City of Jacksonville.
Katz & Katz and Walter G. Arnold, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellee was injured when the taxicab in which she was riding as a passenger collided at a street intersection with an automobile owned by the City of Jacksonville and being driven by its employee. She sued the New Deal Cab Company, owner of the taxicab, and the City to recover for her injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of each defendant. At the close of all the evidence, the trial judge, upon the motion of the plaintiff, directed the jury to enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff 'in reference to negligence' and instructed them as to the issues to be resolved by them in the following language:
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, judgment was entered, new trial denied, and this appeal has been taken by the Cab Company and the City from the adverse judgment.
On this appeal, the appellants challenge the propriety of the trial judge's action in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff, contending that 'the evidence was conflicting as to the speed of the taxicab and the City car, the force of the impact, and there was evidence produced by the Cab Company and the City tending to prove that either one or both were not guilty of the negligence charged in the Complaint.' We do not agree.
The accident happened in broad daylight. The weather was clear and the sand streets were dry. No third persons intervened to cause or contribute to the accident. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc.
...54.17, Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A. The most recent expression of this Court on the general subject is found in New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 614, 615. There we 'Where the entire evidence is of such probative force that the trial court, to give effect to the manifest weigh......
-
Kuhn v. Telford
...exposition of the distinctions appear extensively presented in Gravette v. Turner, supra, one of the cases cited as authority in the New Deal Cab Co. case. We clearly said in the Gravette case that where there was substantial evidence tending to prove the issue, it 'should have been submitt......
-
Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc.
...erred in entering a directed verdict for the plaintiff and against no particular defendant. Conflict is asserted with New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, 90 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1956); Sheehan v. Allred, 146 So.2d 760 (Fla.1st DCA 1962); City of St. Petersburg v. Blankenhorn, 251 So.2d 37 (Fla.2d DCA 19......
-
Salman v. Cooper
...multiple defendants would have been permissible. See Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc., 351 So.2d 17 (Fla.1977); New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, 90 So.2d 614 (Fla.1956). The reasoning of the supreme court in New Deal Cab and Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops is equally compelling No third per......
-
The uncertain future of rule 9.130(a) (3) (C) (iv).
...The foregoing conundrums are not the only conundrums created by an expansive reading of the rule. After New Deal Cab Co. v. Stubbs, 90 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1956), and Davis v. Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc., 351 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1977), trial courts are permitted to enter summary judgments and gran......