LLOYD LEE JACKSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT REARDON ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this consolidated appeal from a motor vehicle accident case, the court addressed whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the defendant driver had a duty to use reasonable care. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the instruction was proper and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
The instruction was proper and not erroneous. It was a precise and accurate statement of law that did not invade the jury's province; the jury's function was to determine from the circumstances whether reasonable care was actually used.
[1] A jury instruction stating that a defendant had a duty to use reasonable care for the plaintiff's safety, as a matter of law, is a proper statement of law and does not in…
[2] The operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to persons and property within the vehicle's path.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The general rule supported by a wealth of authority is that one manipulating a motor vehicle on the highway, whether backing, starting or proceeding ahead, must exercise reasonable care, circumstances being the guide as to what constitutes reasonable care.”
Establishes the fundamental legal duty of motor vehicle operators to use reasonable care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minibike operator was injured when the rear wheels of a tractor trailer struck his left leg at an intersection, breaking his ankle. The minibike ope…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal arising out of an accident between a tractor trailer and a minibike. The testimony was in sharp conflict as to how the accident occurred. The injured operator of the minibike testified that he stopped at an intersection as close to the curb as he could get. The tractor trailer approached from the rear. While making a right turn at the intersection, the rear wheels of the truck struck the minibike operator’s left leg, breaking his ankle.
The operator of the tractor trailer testified that he never saw a minibike at the intersection. He had a clear view in front of him as he approached the intersection. After waiting for traffic to clear at the intersection he made a right turn, looking in both directions and checking both mirrors. It was not until he was stopped by a policeman several miles away that he realized there had been an accident.
The only issue is whether it was error for the trial court to give the following instruction over the appellant’s objections:
The court has determined, and now instructs you as a matter of law that the circumstances at the time and place of the incident complained of were such that the Defendant, LLOYD LEE JACKSON, had a duty to use reasonable care for ROBERT REARDEN’S [sic] safety.
Appellants contend that the instruction was an invasion of the jury’s province, placed emphasis on appellees’ case, and misled the jury as to the reciprocal duties of both operators. Appellees contend the instruction was proper, and if erroneous, constituted harmless error. It is fundamental as a matter of law that an operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to use reasonable care to prevent injury to persons and property within the vehicle’s path. This was recognized by Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So. 2d 869, 871 (Fla.1952) when it held:
The general rule supported by a wealth of authority is that one manipulating a motor vehicle on the highway, whether backing, starting or proceeding ahead, must exercise reasonable care, circumstances being the guide as to what constitutes reasonable care.
Sub judice the jury instruction at issue was adopted from Instruction No. 3.1(a), Florida Standard Jury Instructions. It is a precise and accurate statement of the law and does not invade the factfinding province of the jury. The latter’s function is to determine from the circumstances whether reasonable care was used.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vendola v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 474 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…truction 3.1(a), Florida Standard Jury Instructions. Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So. 2d 869, 871 (Fla.1952); Bradley v. Guy, 438 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City of Tamarac v. Garc-har, 398 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Jackson v. Reardon, 392 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The Appellants were entitled to that instruction and the court erred by not giving it.1 SUICIDE DEFENSE We next visit the defense citing suicide as the proximate cause of Vendola’s death. In the first place, that defense is f…
-
Gowdy v. Bell, 993 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…avior, the collision likely would have been avoided. The operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to use reasonable care, in light of the attendant circumstances, to prevent injury to persons within the vehicle’s path. See, e.g., Jackson v. Reardon, 392 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Under the circumstances recited above, whether Mr. Bell exercised sufficient reasonable care to avoid a collision with Ms. Gowdy and whether absence of reasonable care by him resulted in the death of Ms. Gowdy may not be decided…
Authorities Cited
- Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1952)