Miller v. Ungar, (1941)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 13
Judges: ADAMS, J:
Attorneys: Murrell Malone, Arnold Rubin and L.J. Cushman, for appellants.
Edward E. Fleming, for appellee.
Filed: Dec. 16, 1941
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant based on a jury verdict in an action of tort. The question is whether the Court erred by refusing to charge on the doctrine of last clear chance. The plaintiff, an eleven year old boy, sought recovery on the following facts. Plaintiff was riding a bicycle on one of the busy streets of the City of Miami. Defendant's truck was being operated in the same direction at approximately five miles per hour. It was raining. The left window of the truck w
Summary: This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant based on a jury verdict in an action of tort. The question is whether the Court erred by refusing to charge on the doctrine of last clear chance. The plaintiff, an eleven year old boy, sought recovery on the following facts. Plaintiff was riding a bicycle on one of the busy streets of the City of Miami. Defendant's truck was being operated in the same direction at approximately five miles per hour. It was raining. The left window of the truck wa..
More
Before it became the duty of the trial judge to charge the jury on the doctrine of the last clear chance, I think the burden was upon the plaintiff to introduce evidence showing, or tending to show, that the defendant's driver of the wrecker-truck either saw, or (in the exercise of proper care) ought to have seen, the plaintiff's perilous position. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, in this respect, and on
this testimony, I do not believe that the plaintiff bore that burden.
THOMAS, J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
