Summary
indicating that where trial court's findings of fact are reasonably supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, as they are here, appellate court cannot re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment
Summary of this case from Gainesville v. Watson ConstOpinion
No. 64-1021.
June 22, 1965. Rehearing Denied August 9, 1965.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J.
L.J. Cushman, Miami, for appellant.
Truett Watkins, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of the appellee by the trial court in a non-jury cause. The principal question preserved for review by the appellant was the sufficiency of the evidence to find liability.
We have examined the record in light of the applicable appellate principles as to presumption of correctness and the requirement that an appellate court not disturb the final judgment if there is any substantial, competent evidence to support same. See: Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 892; LaFrance Cleaners Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So.2d 330.
It is not the function of this or any other appellate court to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact, be it a jury or a trial judge, and although we might have reached a different conclusion if we had been the initial arbitrator of the factual issues, we are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of the facts if there is evidence to support the complained of ruling and/or judgment. There is sufficient evidence in this record and, therefore, we are compelled to affirm.
Affirmed.