From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Alverson

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Jan 26, 1928
116 So. 30 (Fla. 1928)

Opinion

Opinion Filed January 26, 1928.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Orange County; Frank A. Smith, Judge.

Reversed.

W. E. Kay, Alexander Akerman and W. B. Crawford, for Plaintiff in Error;

Maguire Voorhis, for Defendant in Error.


The writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $20,000.00 damages for alleged personal injuries.

In all cases "the evidence should in probative force not only preponderate in favor of the verdict found, but the evidence should produce in the minds of the jury a reasonable belief of the facts essential to the verdict." Escambia County Light and Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, text 194, 55 So.2d Rep. 83; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 So.2d Rep. 835. And a trial court should not sustain a verdict when it is not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence or with the justice of the case. Shultz v. Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73, text 94; Miller v. White, 23 Fla. 301, 2 So.2d Rep. 614; Meinhard v. Mode, 25 Fla. 181, 5 So.2d 672; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Mugge, 60 Fla. 263, 53 So.2d 943.

It is peculiarly the province of the jury to pass upon the credibility of conflicting testimony and to determine the probative force of competent testimony; but the legal effect of the evidence is a matter of law and the trial court should grant a new trial when there is difficulty in reconciling the verdict with the manifest weight of the evidence and of the justice of the case. Tampa Electric Co. v. Barber, 81 Fla. 405, text 406-7, 88 So.2d 302.

The evidence as to the nature and extent of the personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff below as alleged is so unconvincing and the amount of the verdict is so grossly excessive as to warrant a conclusion that the jury were not governed by the evidence. In such a case the judgment will be reversed. See Railroad Company v. Brash, 73 Fla. 478, 503; Fla. Railroad Co. v. Gensler, 14 Fla. 122; Pensacola Sanitarium v. Wilkins, 64 Fla. 407, 60 So.2d 128; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114, 64 So.2d 669; Southern Utilities Co. v. Davis, 83 Fla. 366, 92 So.2d 683.

Reversed.

ELLIS, C. J., AND WHITFIELD, TERRELL AND BROWN, J. J., concur.


Summaries of

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Alverson

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Jan 26, 1928
116 So. 30 (Fla. 1928)
Case details for

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Alverson

Case Details

Full title:ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, Plaintiff in Error…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division B

Date published: Jan 26, 1928

Citations

116 So. 30 (Fla. 1928)
116 So. 30

Citing Cases

Smith v. Jackson County

A verdict not in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence or with the justice of the case, should be…

Saporito v. Bone

The phrase necessarily implies that the evidence must "satisfy the mind of the jury" such as to "lead a…