Opinion
June 13, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Stanley Milledge, J.
Dixon, DeJarnette Bradford, Miami, for appellants.
W.F. Parker, Miami, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellee recovered a judgment for the sum of $11,655.72 against the defendants-appellants in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. It appears by the record that on December 11, 1947, the defendant, Ruth Kohl, now Ruth Kohl Oppenheimer, was driving her father's automobile in an easterly direction on 79th Street North East in the City of Miami and was in a line of traffic but separated from appellee-plaintiff's car by another automobile. The alleged negligence is that the defendant-appellant carelessly operated the automobile driven by her so as to collide with great force and shoved forward the automobile next in front of her car into the rear end of the car in which plaintiff-appellee was riding, thereby causing described personal injuries.
Counsel for appellants-defendants contend that the judgment entered below should be reversed because: (1) the trial court erred in directing the jury at the close of all the testimony as a matter of law, to find the defendants-appellants liable for whatever damages the plaintiff-appellee sustained as the proximate result of the collision; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury that any future damages rendered in behalf of the plaintiff-appellee would have to be reduced to a present value; the trial court attempted to cure the alleged error by reducing the amount of the verdict by an order of remittitur; (3) was the verdict of $15,000.00 and the judgment, in light of the injuries sustained, excessive?
We find no conflicts in the testimony to the effect that Miss Kohl, on December 11, 1947, was driving an automobile in the line of traffic or that her car put in motion the chain of events which caused the plaintiff's alleged injuries. We find disputes and conflicts on the point of whether or not Miss Kohl carelessly or negligently operated her car so as to injure the plaintiff. It was Miss Kohl's testimony that she operated the car in a proper manner at the time of the collision and that her foot slipped from the brake of the car and struck the accelerator, thereby causing it to plunge forward. She was operating the car with proper care for the rights of others when the flat bottom shoe she was wearing slipped from the brake. It was her testimony that the collision was an unavoidable accident.
The testimony of Howard L. Ditta was to the effect that Miss Kohl (see Tr. 45 to 59) at the time of the collision was talking with her companion then in the seat of the car; that she looked in different directions from the line of traffic. Mr. Ditta was an eyewitness — observing the line of traffic from a filling station. He testified as to the bouncing forward and the impact of the car driven by the appellant. It was the trial court's view that the appellant-defendant was negligent per se, regardless of the disputes and conflicts in the testimony, and accordingly directed the jury to find the appellant guilty of negligence. Counsel for appellee cites here our holdings in Loftin v. McGregor, 152 Fla. 813, 14 So.2d 574; Clyde Bar, Inc., v. McClamma, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So.2d 916, and similar cases, to sustain the ruling of the trial court in holding the appellant guilty of negligence per se.
It is established law that a party moving for a directed verdict admits not only the facts shown by the evidence but admits also every reasonable inference favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably arrive at from the evidence, and, if there are disputes and conflicts in the evidence or evidence tending to prove the issues, a trial court should not grant a directed verdict but submit the same to the jury for decision, under appropriate instructions. McAllister v. Miami Daily News, 154 Fla. 370, 17 So.2d 613. A charge directing a verdict for plaintiff should never be given unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the defendant. Welborn v. Kemp, 141 Fla. 89, 192 So. 469.
Having reached the conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff below and against the defendant, thereby holding the defendant guilty of negligence — regardless of the disputes and conflicts in the evidence on the point of liability — it is not necessary for us to rule on other questions posed here for adjudication.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, HOBSON, J., and SIMPSON, Associate Justice, concur.