Vanzant v. Davies, J--127

• Decision Date: 14 November 1968
• Docket Number: No. J--127,J--127
• Parties: Elvia C. VANZANT, Appellant, v. Ernest Alfred DAVIES, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 504

215 So.2d 504

Elvia C. VANZANT, Appellant, v. Ernest Alfred DAVIES, Appellee.

No. J--127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 14, 1968.

Austin, Richardson & Harrison, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Boyd, Jenerette & Leemis, Jacksonville, for appellee.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting Chief Judge.

The plaintiff in a negligence action has appealed from a final judgment for the defendant entered by the Circuit Court for Nassau County, based upon a jury verdict.

The basic question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether, as the defendant contends, the evidence at the trial showed that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff's negligence did not proximately contribute to his injuries.

In order to test the validity of this contention, we need only to examine the transcript of the trial proceedings in order to determine whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the jury from which they as reasonable men could have reached their findings of fact inherent in their verdict. This is so because, under our court system, the jury in an action at law is the trier of the facts and in such capacity resolves the conflicts in the evidence, as well as the conflicting inferences deducible from the same evidence. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court is authorized to substitute its judgment for that of the jury as to questions of fact.

While the trial transcript shows that there were conflicts in the evidence before the jury, as well as conflicting inferences, we are of the opinion, applying the foregoing precepts, that the evidence reasonably supports the verdict returned by the jury, and so the final judgment, based upon that verdict, is affirmed.

Other questions raised in this appeal have been considered and found to lack substantial merit. Therefore, the final judgment appealed from herein must be and it is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, J., concurs.

RAWLS, Judge (dissenting).

In my opinion the trial judge erred in failing to grant appellant's motion for new trial in that the record reveals without material contradiction that the jury's verdict was: 1. contrary to the law; 2. contrary to the evidence; 3. not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence; and 4. based upon speculation or conjecture.

This controversy arose out of an automobile accident between motor vehicles driven by plaintiff and defendant between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on June 2, 1965, a clear dry night. The uncontradicted evidence shows that plaintiff was traveling south around a sweeping curve to the right on State Road 200 (AIA). Defendant, age 69, was traveling west on a paved county road which crossed a railroad track and terminated at the eastern edge of State Road 200. Across the intersection was a service station. The accident occurred in the southbound lane of traffic on State Road 200--which was the lane in which plaintiff was traveling. Plaintiff left 69 feet of skid marks prior to the point of impact. The car driven by the plaintiff was damaged on the left front, and defendant's car was damaged on the left rear door.

The defendant testified: 'I crossed the railroad track and stopped and I looked and I couldn't see nothing, and I started on across, * * * Well, I got just across and there I looked and there the car was and when I seen it, I stomped down on my accelerator and tried to get out of the way, and I supposed the engine stopped. I was so excited then, I am sure it did stop, because I didn't get across and he hit me.' He estimated plaintiff's speed at 50 m.p.h. (speed limit--45 m.p.h.), and testified that the lights from the service station in front of him were 'everywhere' 'shining in his eyes.' He further...