Lehrer v. Fontainebleu Hotel Corp.

285 So. 2d 636, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6404
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 20, 1973
DocketNo. 73-229
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 So. 2d 636 (Lehrer v. Fontainebleu Hotel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lehrer v. Fontainebleu Hotel Corp., 285 So. 2d 636, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6404 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed an action for personal injuries received when she fell in a restaurant of the defendant-appellee. The case was tried on issues of negligence and contributory negligence. The defendant moved for directed verdict at the close of the evidence. The court reserved ruling and the case went to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Thereafter the court granted defendant’s deferred motion for directed verdict, and entered judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The rule controlling the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, that the motion should not be granted unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict of the plaintiff,1 is applicable upon consideration by the court, after verdict, of a deferred motion for directed verdict, where ruling on a motion therefor made prior to verdict has been reserved and the jury has rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.2 Likewise, on reviewing a judgment for the defendant based on such a directed verdict the appellate court is required to observe the settled rule that it should consider the testimony adduced in the cause in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregard[637]*637ing conflicts in the evidence and indulging in plaintiff’s favor every reasonable in-tendment deducible from the evidence.3

Upon so considering the evidence presented, we hold that it was proper for the case to be submitted to the jury for determination of the issues involved. Accordingly the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to reinstate the verdict for the plaintiff, and enter judgment thereon.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Balart v. Michel's Kartway, Inc.
364 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lehrer
294 So. 2d 90 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 So. 2d 636, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehrer-v-fontainebleu-hotel-corp-fladistctapp-1973.