Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., BAILEY-LEWIS-WILLIAM
| Decision Date | 24 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | INC,BAILEY-LEWIS-WILLIAM,No. 65--1006,65--1006 |
| Citation | 194 So.2d 293 |
| Parties | Jeannine WILSON and Robert Wilson, her husband, Appellants, v., Royal Castle Systems, Inc., and Oida C. Rubin, an individual, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wheeler & Evans, Miami, for appellants.
Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for appellees.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
By this appeal, the plaintiff in the trial court questions the correctness of a directed verdict for the defendant and final judgment thereon. The defendant, by cross-assignment, also questions a part of the final judgment.
In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a trial judge is required to determine whether or not there is any evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the plaintiff's cause of action. See: Good v. Ozer, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 204; Belden v. Lynch, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 578. And, if there is no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support the plaintiff's cause of action, then he is authorized to grant a directed verdict. See: Swilley v. Economy Cab Co. of Jacksonville, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 914; Smith's Bakery, Incorporated v. Jernigan, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 519. Upon a defendant moving for a directed verdict, the plaintiff is entitled to all conflicts in the evidence or inconsistencies being resolved in his favor, together with all reasonable inferences logically deducible from the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to him. See: Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749.
Examining the record on appeal in this cause in light of these principles at the time of the determination of the motion for a directed verdict, we find the following: Approximately five to seven days prior to July 26, 1960, the appellee, Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., was engaged in painting a three story building located on the northeast corner of the intersection of S.E. 1st Street and 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida, pursuant to a contract with the owner. A 'hanging' scaffold was utilized by the workmen in the conduct of their work. Said scaffold was attached to the roof and had to be moved several times during the painting of the building. Each time the scaffold was moved, pieces of tile from the roof would fall to the ground. The workmen, while preparing the building for painting, would chip off pieces of paint and other debris which also fell to the ground and, on at least one occasion, they dropped a caulking gun. These occurrences prompted a policeman nearby to warn the foreman on the job to be more careful. On the day of the accident involved herein, the painters were working above a marquee of a Royal Castle restaurant located in the building. There were no ropes or protective devices to warn passersby of the painters and their activities. At approximately 12:00 o'clock noon, the appellant, Jeannine Wilson, accompanied by a friend walked beneath the marquee and she was struck on the shoulder by a neon tube which fell from the marquee, resulting in alleged injury to her eye and foot. A police officer, who was directing traffic near the scene, went to investigate and was told by one of the painters working on the job that they had dropped something.
Shortly after the accident, Jeannine Wilson went to the doctor to have a small cut on her foot attended to. Later in the day her eye began to bother her and, when it became inflamed, she went to have the eye treated. She recovered completely from the injury to her foot, but the eye injury was such that it would appear to be cured and then flare up again periodically. Such a situation has existed from the time of the accident until trial and, apparently, will continue to exist for an undetermined period of time if not for the rest of her life.
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 67--1005
...89 So.2d 780; Budgen v. Brady, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 672; Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 820; Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 293. Measuring the evidence in light of this principle at the time of the motion, it is apparent that the trial judge ......
-
Lovings v. Seaboard Coastline R. Co.
...favor every reasonable inference therefrom. Guerriero v. Adams, 190 So.2d 432 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1966); Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., 194 So.2d 293 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1967); Mathis v. Lambert, 274 So.2d 601 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1973); Kilburn v. Davenport, 286 So.2d 241 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1973). So ......
-
Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc.
...So.2d 987 (Fla.1988); Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985); Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., 194 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Admiral on the maintenance and cure ......
-
Investors Tax Sheltered Real Estate, Ltd. v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath
...plaintiff's favor every reasonable inference therefrom. Guerriero v. Adams, 190 So.2d 432 (Fla.3d DCA1966); Wilson v. Bailey-Lewis-Williams, Inc., 194 So.2d 293 (Fla.3d DCA1967); Mathis v. Lambert, supra; Kilburn v. Davenport, 286 So.2d 241 (Fla.3d DCA1973); and Lovings v. Seaboard Coastlin......