Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1952 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | SNIDER v. BANCROFT INV. CORP. |
Bedell & Bedell, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Osborne, Copp & Markham, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Bancroft Investment Company was the owner and operator of an elevator in the Professional Building, Jacksonville. Jack Snider was a tenant in the building and boarded the elevator on the ground floor, bound for his office on the sixth floor. When the elevator reached the second floor, on account of the crowded condition, Snider stepped off in order that others might alight more readily. As he stepped aboard, the elevator door struck him on the right shoulder, knocking him against the opposite wall. Two or three hours later, Snider's arm got numb. He sought medical relief and was sent to the hospital, where his arm was placed in a sling, and fitted with a brace. In a suit to recover damages for personal injuries, the jury returned a verdict for defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
Appellant contends, (1) the evidence required a finding of negligence on the part of the elevator operator; (2) contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff was not proven; (3) the applicable rule of law required the granting of a new trial.
Contentions one and two are addressed to the finding of the jury as to the probative value of the evidence. The evidence has been examined, and, while some aspects of its may be susceptible of a different interpretation, the jury, under fair, full, and appropriate charges, settled the point against the contention of appellant. It is further contended that the 'verdict is the result of some prejudice,' but no such 'prejudice' is pointed out, and we are unable to say that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence.
The third contention has to do with the well settled rule, that if the 'trial court is of opinion that the verdict does not accord with the manifest weight of the evidence and the substantial justice of the cause, a new trial should be granted if duly made.'
This contention is addressed to the conscience of the trial court and his judgment should not be reversed, absent a showing of abuse of discretion. The trial court had the parties and the evidence before him and was in much better position to appraise the probative value of the testimony than we are. For all the record discloses, the charges of the court were acceptable to both parties. The verdict and judgment are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwood v. Oates
...of South Miami v. State ex rel. Gibbs, 143 Fla. 524, 197 So. 109 (1940); Loos v. Scarfone, 46 So.2d 395 (Fla.1950); Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., 61 So.2d 184 (Fla.1952); Florida Power and Light Company v. Ahearn, 118 So.2d 21 (Fla.1960); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So.2d 222 Moreover, beca......
-
Hernandez v. Feliciano
...trial court abused its discretion in simply disagreeing with the finding of the jury on the issue of liability. E.g., Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., 61 So.2d 184 (Fla.1952) (recognizing that mere disagreement with the verdict of a jury is not sufficient warrant for a new trial); see also Wa......
-
Sweeney v. Wiggins, 76-1743
...or loss of earnings. This issue may be best disposed of by the following statement of Justice Terrell in Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., 61 So.2d 184, 185 (Fla.1952): ". . . For all the record discloses, the charges of the court were acceptable to both parties. The verdict and judgment are p......
-
Lopez v. Cohen, 79-2281.
...was more credible. Mere disagreement with the verdict of a jury is not sufficient warrant for a new trial. Snider v. Bancroft Inv. Corp., 61 So.2d 184, 185 (Fla. 1952). The reasons given by the court do not support the finding that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evid......