Case ID: so2d_402/html/0437-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. FERGUSON, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aida DOMENECH, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Eliseo Domenech, and Elida Perez, Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee.
    No. 79-2422, 80-895.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 7, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1981.
    Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for appellants.
    Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tu-tan, O’Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Otis Smith, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellants’ failure to offer proof sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the design of the GM Step-Van, which allegedly caused her husband’s death, was defective so as to cause an unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury, Ford Motor Co. v. Evancho, 327 So.2d 201 (Fla.1976), requires us to affirm the directed verdict entered in favor of General Motors Corporation. See Aetna Life & Casualty Company v. Little, 384 So.2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Keyes Company v. Arvida Corporation, 360 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The appellants’ other points on appeal are equally without merit.

Affirmed.

FERGUSON, Judge,

dissenting.

I am not certain that a jury of six reasonable people would come to a different conclusion from that reached by the learned trial judge. Nonetheless, the entire record shows sufficient evidence to survive a motion for directed verdict. It is only in the absence of any evidence that a court should direct a verdict for a defendant. If the evidence is conflicting, or where it may lead to different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from them to be passed upon by the judge as a question of law. Hendricks v. Daley, 208 So.2d 101 (Fla.1968); Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Behar v. Root, 393 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Laird v. Potter, 367 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 347 (Fla.1979); Tiny’s Liquors Inc. v. Davis, 353 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

I would reverse and remand for a new trial.