STALVEY v. BRANTON, 99-672 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 11-12-1999)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case arises from a vehicular collision at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Arapahoe in St. Augustine involving Carol Stalvey and Wayne A. Branton. Branton contended he was pulling off Arapahoe to make a left turn onto U.S. 1 when the collision occurred. Stalvey claimed she was driving north on U.S. 1 and was hit by Branton when he pulled into her path. Eyewitnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Miller, testified that Stalvey ran a stop sign on Arapahoe and collided with Branton in the intersection. The jury credited the Millers’ testimony, finding Branton not liable. Stalvey appealed, arguing that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Branton allegedly failed to yield the right of way. The appeal was heard by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, which affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence in finding Branton not liable for the collision.
2. Whether Branton's failure to yield the right of way imposed at least partial fault upon him.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Stalvey’s motion for a new trial based on the evidence presented.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Stalvey argued that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because Branton failed to yield the right of way, which should establish at least partial fault on his part.
• Her argument relied on the premise that she was proceeding north on U.S. 1 when Branton pulled into her path, which would mean Branton was negligent.
• She contended that the testimony of the Millers was contradictory to Branton’s and that the jury disbelieved her version of events.

Appellees' Arguments

• The appellees relied on the Millers’ eyewitness testimony that Stalvey ran a stop sign on Arapahoe and collided with Branton while he was in the intersection attempting a turn onto U.S. 1.
• They maintained that the jury’s credibility determination in favor of the Millers’ account was supported by the evidence and justified the verdict of no liability for Branton.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the factual dispute primarily through the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The jury credited the Millers’ account that Stalvey ran a stop sign on Arapahoe and collided with Branton while he was in the intersection attempting a turn onto U.S. 1. The court reasoned that it was immaterial whether Branton entered the intersection from Old Dixie or Arapahoe because, in either case, he was in the intersection lawfully attempting a turn when the collision occurred. Stalvey’s version, which required disbelieving the Millers, was rejected by the jury. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict as supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, Judge Harris’s special concurrence highlighted the seriousness of perjury in civil litigation, suggesting the matter be referred for criminal investigation, though this did not affect the judgment.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED.

The court upheld the jury’s verdict finding Branton not liable for the accident. The direct effect is the denial of Stalvey’s appeal and the affirmation of the trial court’s judgment. No new legal precedent was established, but the concurrence underscores the importance of truthfulness in civil proceedings and the potential criminal consequences of perjury.