Tillman v. Baskin
| Decision Date | 22 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 40765,40765 |
| Parties | Easter Mae TILLMAN, Petitioner, v. Bobbie Jean BASKIN and Elizabeth Benton, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Russell Troutman, Sidney H. Parrish and Gary W. Udouj of Law Offices of Russell Troutman, Winter Park, for petitioner.
Rodney G. Ross of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for respondents.
We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Tillman v. Baskin, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 748.
At the close of the plaintiff's case in this nonjury, gross negligence action, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion for directed verdict and entered a final judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Fourth District Court affirmed. The District Court held the motion was properly granted, even though the evidence would not have supported such a motion in a jury trial. In this connection the District Court said:
'As concerns the evidence, it was adequate to withstand such motion under the criteria that obtains in jury trials,' which indicates plaintiff's evidence made out a prima facie case.
The District Court distinguished jury and nonjury trials, saying,
(Emphasis supplied)
We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, because of the apparent conflict between this holding and the decisions of this Court and the Third District Court of Appeal in Hartnett v. Fowler, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 724, and Wayjay Bakery, Inc. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 544.
Rule 1.420(b) F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., the involuntary dismissal rule, provides in part:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The District Court properly concluded that in a nonjury trial a Rule 1.420(b) F.R.C.P. motion for involuntary dismissal is the proper method by which a defendant may obtain a verdict in his favor following the presentation of the plaintiff's case. Rule 1.480 F.R.C.P., motions for directed verdicts, accomplish the same goal in jury trials.
The issue before this Court is whether the lower appellate court also properly concluded that under the involuntary dismissal rule the trial judge in a nonjury case may weigh the evidence and rule in the defendant's favor before the defendant presents his evidence even though the plaintiff has established a prima facie case.
An affirmative answer to this question would create an important difference between involuntary dismissals and their jury-trial counterparts, directed verdicts. It is clear that a judge in ruling on a latter motion may not weigh the evidence.
The question posed by this case has been considered by courts in other jurisdictions with rules of civil procedure similar to ours. Since it was amended in 1946, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which is virtually identical to Florida's Rule 1.420(b), has been interpreted by federal courts as permitting a trial judge to 'weigh the evidence, consider the law, and find for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case.' 5 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 1158 (2d ed. 1971). In the past, several of this state's district courts of appeal have followed this holding. Gibson v. Gibson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 388; Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 711. This was the rule relied upon by the District Court in this case. Tillman v. Baskin, supra. Only the Third District Court of Appeal has indicated it does not intend to follow the federal answer to this question. Wayjay Bakery, Inc. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., supra.
Federal courts apparently feel justified in permitting their trial judges to weigh evidence following the presentation of a plaintiff's prima facie case, because such a holding enables judges 'to expedite the trial of cases,' and 'dispose of cases at the earliest opportunity.' Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., 6th Cir. 1945, 148 F.2d 407, 410. Their interpretation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Bloedel
...case in a nonjury trial, a trial court is limited to determining whether or not the plaintiff has made a prima facie case. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1972), and State, [Dep't] of Health and Rehabilitative [Servs.] v. Thibodeaux, 547 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The court in ma......
-
Kim v. State
...his burden of proof. Accord Trusty v. Jones, 369 P.2d 420 (Alaska 1962); Arbenz v. Debout, 444 P.2d 317 (Wyo.1968). And in Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509 (Fla.1972), the Supreme Court of Florida, claiming to follow the Supreme Court of Alaska, held "that a trial judge cannot weigh evidenc......
-
Wernimont v. State
...if plaintiff has made a prima facie case. See e. g., Minton v. McGowan, 253 Ark. 945, 946, 490 S.W.2d 136, 137 (1973); Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla.1972); Hooton v. Kenneth B. Mumaw Plumbing & Heating Co., 271 Md. 565, 572, 318 A.2d 514, 517-18 (1974); Schmidt v. Merriweath......
-
Horan v. Horan, s. 83-2177
... ... Rather, the court must wait until the defendant has also presented his or her case. Tillman ... v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509 (Fla.1972); see also, In re Estate of Edsell, 447 So.2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Thus, we conclude that the master ... ...
-
Chapter 13-6 Motions for Involuntary Dismissal
...Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b); Day v. Amini, 550 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).[84] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b).[85] Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1972) ("We hold that a trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a defendant's Rule 1.420(b) F.R.C.P. motion for involuntary dismi......
-
Chapter 13-6 Motions for Involuntary Dismissal
...Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b); Day v. Amini, 550 So. 2d 169, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).[86] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b).[87] Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1972) ("We hold that a trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a defendant's Rule 1.420(b) F.R.C.P. motion for involuntary dismi......