Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hart, Et Vir v. Held, (1941)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Number:  Visitors: 11
Judges: PER CURIAM:
Attorneys: Metcalf Finch, for plaintiffs in error. Paty, Warwick Mooney, for defendant in error.
Filed: Dec. 12, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 35 This case is here on writ of error from an order granting a new trial made and entered by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The litigation arose from a collision of two automobiles at the intersection of Hunter Street and Georgia Avenue in the City of West Palm Beach on the first day of December, 1940. It was alleged that Alice L. Hart was d
More

It seems to me that, under the evidence in this case, the question of proximate cause was the vital question in the case, and that question is generally one for the jury to decide. Even if the plaintiff was guilty of some negligence, by entering and driving so slowly across a main street, where drivers thereon had the right of way, it would still be a question for the jury to determine whether the driver of defendant's car could or should (in the exercise of ordinary care) have seen plaintiff's perilous position in time to have avoided the collision. See Frazer v. Gillespie, 98 Fla. 582, 124 So. 6; Dunn Bus Service v. McKinley, 130 Fla. 778, 178 So. 865. So, I think the case was properly *Page 48 submitted to the jury and that on this evidence, the jury's verdict should have been left undisturbed. While I hesitate to reverse an order of an able and conscientious circuit judge, granting a new trial, it appears to me that the order was erroneous.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer