Geo. E. Wood Lumber Co. v. Gipson ex rel. Gilmore

Citations

• 63 Fla. 316

Syllabus

<p>1. A charge or instruction directing a verdict for the defendant should never be given, unless it is clair that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evidence is conflicting, or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is some evidence tending to prove the issue presented by the plaintiff, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the judge as a question of law.</p> <p>2. Questions of negligence and of contributory negligence are for the jury to determine when the facts are controverted.</p> <p>3. In passing upon an assignment questioning the correctness . of the ruling of thb trial court in denying a motion for a new trial, which is based upon the sufficiency of the evidence tb sustain the verdict, the question thereby presented to an appellate court is whether or not the jurors acting as reasonable men could have found such verdict from the evidence adduced. If this question can be answered in the affirmative, the action of the trial court upon such motion should not be disturbed.</p> <p>4. Even though some of the language used in portions of the general charge and instructions of which complaint is made was not so happily chosen as might have been, an appellate court cannot be expected to apply the principles of absolute precision and technical nicety in construing the same. It is sufficient to determine that no reversible error has been made to appear therein.</p> <p>5. Negligence of the defendant employer appearing upon which liability in damages may be predicated, and contributory negligence not clearly appearing, a verdict for the plaintiff cannot be said to be erroneous as matter of law.</p>