Haile v. Mason Hotel & Investment Co.

Citations

• 71 Fla. 469
• 71 So. 540

Syllabus

<p>1. The provision of the statute that “no writ of error shall be granted to the original plaintiff in any suit unless said plaintiff shall first pay all costs which may have occurred in and about the said suit up to the time when said writ of error shall be prayed,” is for the benefit of the defendant in the trial court and it may be waived.</p> <p>2. Taking a non-suit immediately after a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant is granted, may be regarded as a compliance with the statute requiring the non-suit to be taken “before the jury retire from the box.”</p> <p>3. The considerations and legal principles that guide the judicial discretion in directing a verdict and in granting a new trial on the evidence are not the same.</p> <p>4. In directing a verdict, the court is governed practically by the same rules that are applicable in demurrers to evidence.</p> <p>5. A party in moving for. a directed verdict, admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits evei'y conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence.</p> <p>6. Where on the evidence adduced there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the existence of facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or where there is room for such differences as to the inferences which might be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury for their finding, as it is their conclusion, in such cases, that should prevail, and not primarily the views of the judge.</p> <p>7. The duty devolving upon the court in reference to directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised.</p> <p>8. Where the evidence tends to show that the plaintiff, who was injured by falling into an open elevator shaft in a hotel, was not a mere licensee, and the tendency of the evidence is to show actionable negligence on the part o