Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 January 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 68--262,68--262 |
Citation | 218 So.2d 213 |
Parties | Harry WHITMAN, individually, and as husband of the deceased, Rachel Whitman, and Harry Whitman, as the Administrator CTA of the Estate of Rachel Whitman, Deceased, Appellant, v. RED TOP SEDAN SERVICE, INC., and William DiLenge, jointly and severally, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Miles, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, and Walter E. Mackoul, Miami, for appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
On September 1, 1965, the appellant Harry Whitman and his wife, the decedent Rachel Whitman, were paying passengers in a bus-like motor vehicle, commonly referred to as an airport-limousine, being driven by one William DiLenge, as the employee of Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., a common carrier, owner of the vehicle. The limousine was involved in a collision with an automobile at the intersection of Collins Avenue and 22nd Street on Miami Beach.
Harry Whitman and his wife Rachel Whitman filed an action against the driver and the owner of the limousine for damages for personal injuries to them alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant driver. Subsequently, and prior to trial, Rachel Whitman died as a result of her injuries. The complaint was amended to present, in addition to the claim of Harry Whitman individually, claims by him as the husband of the decedent for wrongful death under §§ 768.01 and 768.02 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, under the survival statute, § 45.11, now § 46.021 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The defendants answered and denied negligence.
The case was tried before a jury. At the close of all the evidence the defendants moved for a directed verdict, and the court reserved ruling on the motion. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff, which awarded $1,500 damages to Harry Whitman individually and as husband of the decedent, and awarded $5,000 damages to him as administrator. After verdict the defendants filed a motion under rule 1.480(b) RCP, 30 F.S.A., to enter judgment for defendants in accordance with their motion for directed verdict. That motion did not contain an alternative request for new trial, and the record does not disclose any separately filed motion for new trial. See rule 1.480(c) RCP. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff then filed this appeal, individually and in his said capacities.
In the judgment the trial court said: 'The court finds as a matter of law that the evidence submitted during the trial of this cause is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff; that there was no evidence that the defendant DiLenge was guilty of any negligence which proximately caused or contributed to the occurrence of the accident giving rise to this cause and, accordingly, there is no material issue of fact to submit for the jury's consideration.'
In the first point presented on this appeal the appellant challenges the correctness of the ruling of the trial court that no actionable negligence of the defendant common carrier, through its employed driver, was shown in the evidence.
A trial court's consideration of a defendant's motion for directed verdict is governed by a rule as stated by the Supreme Court in Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174, 176, viz: 'The court should not direct a verdict for the defendant, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff.' See also Chambers v. Loftin, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 220, 221; Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806; Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 93, 94; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 432, 433. That same rule applies when ruling has been reserved and the court has for consideration a defendant's motion after verdict for judgment based on the motion for directed verdict. This is so because under the present practice, provided for by rule 1.480 RCP, the ruling made is a deferred ruling on the motion for directed verdict. A substantially similar rule was held to govern the trial court in disposing of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under the former practice. See Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 543; Smith v. Peninsular Insurance Company, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 212; Love v. Adams, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 55.
On consideration of the evidence disclosed in the record, in the light of the rules set out above, we are impelled to conclude the trial judge was in error in holding that no evidence was adduced which could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff.
The duty owed by this common carrier was that which was stated in Red Top Cab & Baggage Co. v. Masilotti, 5 Cir. 1951, 190 F.2d 668, 671, as follows:
The Florida Supreme Court has defined such duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. School Bd. of Broward County
...directed verdict, the ruling constitutes a deferred decision on the earlier motion for a directed verdict. Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 218 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Reams v. Vaughn, 435 So.2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Accordingly, our task in reviewing the propriety of an ord......
-
Katz v. Harrington, s. 68--966
...204; City of Hialeah v. Revels, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 400; Stanek v. Houston, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 825; Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213; Howe v. Wellons, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 924; 10 B Blashfield, § 6664. When Bell undertook to start Farias's car,......
-
Franklin v. Dade County
...was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence of the driver of the county vehicle. In Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213, 215, this court said: 'A trial court's consideration of a defendant's motion for directed verdict is governed by a rule......
-
Homan v. Dade County
...v. Beem, Fla.1959, 90 So.2d 320; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749; Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213. Only in the event there is no evidence from which the jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff should the trial ju......