MEYER MORDERER AND IRENE MORDERER, APPELLANTS,
v.
KENNETH T. SMITH AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on an appeal from the trial court which granted a summary judgment in favor of appellees Smith and Allstate, and adverse to the Morderers who were the counter plaintiffs in the trial court. The accident which was the subject matter of this litigation was an intersection collision. The trial court apparently concluded that there was no material issue of fact on the issues of negligence of the Morderers, or any comparative negligence of Smith.
In a case of this nature, where it appears that the question of the negligence, vel non, of a party in an intersection collision is a close question the same should be regarded as an issue of fact for resolution by the jury. Weber v. Porco, 100 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1958); Thompson v. MacKaravitz, 447 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to Smith and Allstate and remand this cause to the trial court to undertake further proceedings consistent with the foregoing.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., and POLEN, MARK E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…concluding that no abuse of discretion has been shown. [*76] Defendant’s third argument is that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter an order revoking her probation absent a written probation order. Defendant relies on Bogan v. State, 502 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), in support of her argument. In Bogan, the defendant was before the trial court on seven cases. The record suggested that although the trial court intended to place the defendant on probation in all seven, the record in one partic…
-
Cartwright v. State, 565 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…he order of revocation of probation is corrected to delete the reference to an alleged violation of condition 3, which required that the defendant not leave his county of residence without the permission of his probation officer. See Bogan v. State, 502 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (It is error for an order of revocation of probation to reflect that defendant was found guilty of three violations where the State presented evidence which supported only one of the violations). At the conclusion of the hearing…
-
Compo v. State, 525 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…mand the case to the trial court for a correction of the revocation of probation order to include Compo’s conviction for dealing in stolen property as the reason for the revocation in conformity with the trial court’s pronouncements. Bogan v. State, 502 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). See also Gilmore v. State, 523 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Compo need not be present for this correction. The convictions and sentences are affirmed. Remanded with instructions. SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. .…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weber v. Porco, 100 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1958)
- Beecham v. Beecham, 447 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)