Rubio v. Armour Co., (1927)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 11
Judges: CHILLINGWORTH, Circuit Judge:
Attorneys: Caraballo, Moran Graham, for Plaintiff in Error;
Jackson, Dupree Cone, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Oct. 21, 1927
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Plaintiff brought suit for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligent operation of an automobile of the defendant. At conclusion of the testimony the Court directed a verdict for the defendant. *Page 762 We believe it would serve no useful purpose to restate the testimony in this opinion. However, indulging in all proper inferences favorable to the plaintiff, it is evident that plaintiff, after having alighted from a street car, which street car was near the right hand side of
Summary: Plaintiff brought suit for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligent operation of an automobile of the defendant. At conclusion of the testimony the Court directed a verdict for the defendant. *Page 762 We believe it would serve no useful purpose to restate the testimony in this opinion. However, indulging in all proper inferences favorable to the plaintiff, it is evident that plaintiff, after having alighted from a street car, which street car was near the right hand side of ..
More
While I concur in the principle of law stated in the foregoing opinion, I am of the opinion that upon the facts developed by the evidence it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. I think the case should have been submitted to the jury. I therefore dissent.
Source: CourtListener
