Stover v. Stovall

137 So. 249, 103 Fla. 284
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 27, 1931·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinions

Buford, C.J.

In this ease the writ of error is to a judgment for defendant based on a directed verdict.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that' the judgment should be reversed because there is substantial evidence‘in the record to show negligence on the part of de *285 fendant in error, who was defendant in the court below in a suit brought to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted on the plaintiff by the negligent operation by the defendant of an automobile on the public highway. It is true that there is some evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, but the great weight of the evidence is to the effect that defendant was operating the automobile in a careful manner, had the -automobile under full control and was conforming to the rules of the road when the plaintiff, a little girl, ran across the street immediately in front of defendant’s approaching automobile -and was either knocked down by the -automobile or fell and suffered a broken leg. A verdict on the evidence should not have been allowed to stand and, therefore, there was no harmful error in directing a verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield and Ellis, J.J., concur.

Terrell, J., agrees to conclusion.

Brown and Davis, J.J., dissent.

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

Stover v. Stovall, 137 So. 249, 103 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1931).

137 So. 249 (Stover v. Stovall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riedel v. Driscoll
124 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Griffis v. Du Bow
114 So. 2d 207 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Connell v. Petri
30 So. 2d 922 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Penney v. Penney
1 So. 2d 883 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Gables Racing Assoc., Inc. v. Persky
6 So. 2d 257 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
Markell v. Hilpert
192 So. 392 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Lott, Et Vir v. City of Orlando
196 So. 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Grantham v. Grantham
191 So. 197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Golden Gate Development Co. v. Ritchie
191 So. 202 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Vaughn v. Stewart, Et Vir.
191 So. 693 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Taylor v. State
190 So. 691 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Brooks v. Pryor, Et Ux.
189 So. 675 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Meola, Et Ux. v. Sparks, Et Vir.
189 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Carter v. Florida Power & Light Co.
189 So. 705 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Saunders v. Lischkoff
188 So. 815 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Mills Rock Co. v. Mills
188 So. 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Alford v. Barnett National Bank
188 So. 322 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Haire v. Brooks
83 P.2d 980 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1938)
Robb v. Pike
161 So. 732 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)