Stirling v. Sapp, 37573

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida
• Citation: 229 So.2d 850
• Docket Number: No. 37573,37573
• Parties: Ronald C. STIRLING and Colleen Finney Stirling, his wife, Petitioners, v. James W. SAPP and Sandra Ash Sapp, his wife, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 02 July 1969

Page 850

229 So.2d 850 Ronald C. STIRLING and Colleen Finney Stirling, his wife, Petitioners,
v.
James W. SAPP and Sandra Ash Sapp, his wife, Respondents. No. 37573. Supreme Court of Florida. July 2, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1969.

Page 851

George A. Routh and Carleton L. Weidemeyer, Clearwater, for petitioners.

Luke R. Kaleel, of Kaleel, Kaleel & Kaleel, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

ADKINS, Justice.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we are requested to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal because of alleged conflicts with prior decisions of this Court and decisions of other District Courts of Appeal. Fla.Const., Art. V, § 4 (F.S.A.); Stirling v. Sapp, 209 So.2d 251 (Fla.App.2d 1968).

Petitioners, plaintiffs below, brought suit for damages sustained as the result of an automobile accident at an unmarked intersection. Final judgment for plaintiffs was entered upon a jury verdict in the amount of $15,000.00. This judgment was set aside upon motion and final judgment notwithstanding the verdict was entered by the trial court in favor of the defendants. The final order which set aside the judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed on appeal.

In its opinion the District Court of Appeal quoted pertinent portions of the trial judge's final order as follows:

'(T)he evidence is substantially without conflict as to the cause of the accident. The driver of each vehicle was a young matron who, coincidentally, on the day in question had attended the same church meeting in the home of a fellow church member. Each left at or about the same time, i.e. about 11:00 a.m. on a bright, clear day, in a pleasant residential neighborhood. Somehow, they got athwartships of each other on the way home and found themselves approaching the same unmarked intersection at right angles, the plaintiff headed North and the defendant headed East. The testimony of each is remarkably identical from this point on. Each says she was not exceeding 15 to 16 miles per hour; each says that she looked in both directions as she approached the intersection; each says that there was nothing to obstruct her view in the direction from which the other car was approaching; and each says that she did not see the other until at, or a split second before, impact. The evidence further reflects that there were no skid marks from either vehicle prior to impact and that the impact occurred approximately in the geometric center of the intersection.

'From all of the foregoing, this Court finds that the case is controlled by the principles implicit * * * in Kokotoff v. Higman (Fla.App.3d 1958), 101 So.2d 166. While the jury was justified in finding negligence on the part of the defendant driver, the factual circumstances, manifest by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, place the plaintiffs in virtually the same position as the defendants. A finding of negligence on the part of one driver must necessarily result in a finding of negligence on the part of the other unless the jury completely disregards all the testimony and inferences (and bearing on the issue of contributory negligence), in favor of the defendants.

Page 852

To so disregard such evidence and inferences in the face of this record would be arbitrary and unreasonable, and the record is devoid of any justification therefor.

'In any event, and notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court finds that the substantially undisputed testimony reflects that each of the drivers was negligent in this case as a matter of law. The evidence herein will not permit of any reasonable inferences to the contrary.'

Motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict, like motions for directed verdict, should be resolved with extreme caution since the granting thereof holds that one side of the case is essentially devoid of probative evidence. The trial judge is authorized to grant such motion only if there is no evidence or Reasonable inferences to support the opposing position. Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968). The rules governing motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict are substantially the same as those which guide the disposition of a motion for directed verdict. This Court in Nelson v. Ziegler, 89 So.2d 780 (Fla.1956) said:

'A party moving for a directed verdict admits not only the facts stated in the evidence presented but he also admits every ocnclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might freely and reasonably infer from the evidence. It is ordinarily the function of the jury to weigh and evaluate the evidence. This is particularly so in negligence cases where reasonable men often draw waried where reasonable men often draw varied a case of...