Stover v. Stovall

• Decision Date: 27 October 1931
• Parties: STOVER v. STOVALL.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

137 So. 249

103 Fla. 284

STOVER v. STOVALL.

Florida Supreme Court

October 27, 1931

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.

Action by Carol Stover, an infant, by her next friend and natural guardian, C. I. Stover, Jr., against Wallace O. Stovall. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

DAVIS and BROWN, JJ., dissenting.

Any doubt should be resolved in favor of trial court's direction of verdict for defendant and judgment thereon.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

Evidence examined, and, while we found that there was some evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant, the great weight of the evidence was to the contrary, and justice demanded that the judgment should be in favor of the defendant. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the ruling and judgment of the trial court.

COUNSEL L. A. Grayson and Macfarlane, Pettingill Macfarlane & Fowler, all of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Jackson Dupree & Cone, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

In this case the writ of error is to a judgment for defendant based on a directed verdict.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the judgment should be reversed because there is substantial evidence in the record to show negligence on the part of defendant in error, who was defendant in the court below in a suit brought to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted on the plaintiff by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile on the public highway. It is true that there is some evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, but the great weight of the evidence is to the effect that defendant was operating the automobile in a careful manner had the automobile under full control, and was conforming to the rules of the road when the plaintiff, a little girl, ran across the street immediately in front of defendant's approaching automobile, and was either knocked down by the automobile or fell and suffered a broken leg. A verdict on the evidence should not have been allowed to stand, and therefore there was no harmful error in directing a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD and ELLIS, JJ., concur.

TERRELL, J., agrees to conclusion.

DISSENTING

DAVIS J. (dissenting).

Merely because the verdict would have been set aside on motion for a new trial is no warrant to sustain direction of a...