Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Linder
| Decision Date | 18 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-406,65-406 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 697 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and Sidney Grant Robinson, Appellants, v. James Allan LINDER, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Willie Mae Linder and Willie Mae Linder, individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl and Edward J. Atkins, Miami, for appellants.
Hofman, Brandt & Doyle, Miami, for appellees.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The defendants below, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and an employee, Sidney Grant Robinson, appeal a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The action was brought on behalf of James Allan Linder, a minor, by his mother, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused when the defendant company's truck was involved in a collision with the minor plaintiff's bicycle.
The sole question on appeal is the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict in their favor, inasmuch as there was no evidence of negligence on their part and the minor plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Where the action of a trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant is assigned as error, the evidence on appeal must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ansin v. Thurston, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 87. The evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants was slight, but when viewed on appeal in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we cannot say that it was non-existent.
The issues of negligence and contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury which resolved them against the defendants, and we do not find the trial court committed reversible error in denying the motions for a directed verdict.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Bruch
...(1934); Ojus Mining Co. v. Manufacturers Trust Co. 82 F.2d 74 (9th cir. 1963); Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Linder,. 181 So.2d 697 (Fla.App.1966). See also Manion v. Waybright, 59 Idaho 643, 86 P.2d 181; Hobbs v. Union Pac.R.Co., 62 Idaho 58, 108 P.2d 841; Stearns v. Graves, 6......
-
Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth
...See: Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 820; Lloyd v. McKenna, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 583; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 697. The second point presents a somewhat more difficult problem. This relates to the denial by the trial ju......
-
Lee v. Dade County
...issue, it was not error to refuse to direct a verdict for appellant on the issue of liability. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder, 181 So.2d 697 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). After having considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the ......