Case Name: Ziola Rose DE SCHULL QUENDO, Appellant, v. Judith Harriet FRISCH, Norbert Frisch, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-09-22
Citations: 239 So. 2d 274
Docket Number: No. 69-1036
Parties: Ziola Rose DE SCHULL QUENDO, Appellant, v. Judith Harriet FRISCH, Norbert Frisch, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 239
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
Ziola Rose DE SCHULL QUENDO, Appellant, v. Judith Harriet FRISCH, Norbert Frisch, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. 69-1036.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 22, 1970.
William F. Sullivan IV; Jeanne Hey-ward, Miami, for appellant.
Charles C. Papy, Jr., and John Carruth-ers, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment appealed from was entered for defendants upon the granting of their motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence, in an action brought by the plaintiff-appellant for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while a pedestrian, which were alleged to have been caused by negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant Judith Harriet Frisch.
Upon reviewing the testimony adduced in the cause in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregarding conflicts in the evidence and indulging in plaintiff's favor every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence (Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1963, 62 So.2d 355, 356), we conclude that the trial judge was in error in holding, as was essential that he do in granting defendants' motion for directed verdict, that there was no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the cause is to be retried, it would serve no useful purpose for this court to restate here the evidence presented at trial.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.
. See Chambers v. Loftin, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 220, 221; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806; Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 93, 94; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 432.