Heitman v. Davis, (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 17
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Swearingen, Wilson Allen and Johnson Bosarge, for Plaintiff in Error;
Carver Langston and Evan T. Evans, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jan. 20, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The writ of error is to a judgment in favor of defendant in error in the sum of $3,000.00 as compensation for injuries received in an automobile collision which occurred at the intersection of Bartow Avenue and State Road No. 17 in Auburndale, Florida. The plaintiff in error submits that there are five (5) questions to be determined by us in this case. The first question is: "Was the verdict of the jury against the law as enunciated in the following charge to the jury: "`Now, the first plea of t
Summary: The writ of error is to a judgment in favor of defendant in error in the sum of $3,000.00 as compensation for injuries received in an automobile collision which occurred at the intersection of Bartow Avenue and State Road No. 17 in Auburndale, Florida. The plaintiff in error submits that there are five (5) questions to be determined by us in this case. The first question is: "Was the verdict of the jury against the law as enunciated in the following charge to the jury: "`Now, the first plea of th..
More
The plaintiff below, Mary Davis, a young lady at the time about 20 years old, was seated in
the front seat of her father's car between her father (the driver) and a Miss Calloway, who was on the side nearest the right hand side of the car, when she was injured. Assuming that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff's father in driving his car into the intersection where it was struck by the LaSalle car of the defendant below, it certainly cannot be said as a matter of law that the father's contributory negligence is imputable to his minor child merely because she did not undertake to control her father's operation of the car in which she was simply a passenger at the time. S.A.L. versus Watson, 94 Fla. 571, 113 Sou. Rep. 716. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to recover unless her father's alleged negligence was the sole cause of the collision, the latter being a question of fact for the jury.
REHEARING DENIED
Source: CourtListener
