Smith, Richardson & Conroy v. Tampa Electric Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1921
• Citation: 89 So. 352,82 Fla. 79
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: SMITH, RICHARDSON & CONROY v. TAMPA ELECTRIC CO.

89 So. 352

82 Fla. 79

SMITH, RICHARDSON & CONROY v. TAMPA ELECTRIC CO.

Florida Supreme Court

June 30, 1921

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Action by Smith, Richardson & Conroy against the Tampa Electric Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

What necessary for recovery of damages stated. In order to warrant a recovery of damages by a plaintiff, the evidence must be of such a nature as to produce a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict, and the verdict should accord with the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the case.

Verdict for defendant should be directed, where evidence insufficient to support verdict for plaintiff. Where the evidence would not in law support a verdict for the plaintiff, there can legally be no recovery, and the court should direct a verdict for the defendant.

Directed verdict will not be disturbed on writ of error, where justified by evidence. Where the trial judge in directing a verdict for the defendant states that 'there is not sufficient evidence in this case for a recovery,' and the ruling is justified by the evidence, the directed verdict will not be disturbed on writ of error; no errors of law appearing.

COUNSEL

H. P. Boyd, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Knight Thompson & Turner, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

In an action against the electric company to recover damages for injuries to a truck, it is alleged that, because of negligent and careless operation and because of excessive rate of speed, the defendant's street car was negligently and carelessly permitted to come into violent collision with the plaintiff's automobile truck. The

'That the plaintiff herein attempted to cross granting or refusing to grant permission to the tracks of the defendant immediately in front of an approaching car, whose presence was known to the plaintiff, or could have been known by the exercise of reasonable care on his part, in that the plaintiff was driving an autotruck and turned the said autotruck in front of the said car, so close to the car that the motorman in charge of the same could not stop before coming into collision with the said truck, and by such action on his part the plaintiff did approximately contribute to the injuries alleged to have been received by it.'

Trial was had on these issues. After the testimony was in, the court directed a verdict for the defendant, stating that 'there is not sufficient evidence in this case for a recovery' and that 'the greater weight of the testimony is with the defendant in this case.' The plaintiff took writ of error to a judgment for the defendant.

In order to warrant a recovery of damages by a plaintiff the evidence must be of such a nature as to produce a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict, and the verdict should accord with the manifest weight of the evidence and the justice of the case. Escambia County Electric Light &amp Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83; Florala Sawmill Co. v. Smith, 55 Fla. 447, 46 So 332; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 86 So. 835; Schultz v. Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73; Tampa Waterworks Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So. 943.

An injury to the plaintiff's automobile truck by the operation of the defendant's street car was shown, and from the testimony showing the injury an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant may reasonably have been drawn, which, together with the presumption of negligence raised by the statute upon proof of 'any damage done to *...