BRAXTON RHODES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
EMMA R. GRUND, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $3,000 in damages for the wrongful death of a husband, killed by an automobile driven by the plaintiff in error. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the driver operated his car recklessly and that the deceased was not contributorily negligent.
Yes, the evidence presented was substantial enough for the jury to determine that the defendant operated his car recklessly and to decide the issue of contributory negligence.
“Under the circumstances it was a question for the jury to say whether or not the defendant in driving his car as he did, was operating his car in a reckless manner when the fatal injuries were inflicted.”
Establishes that the jury was tasked with determining the driver's recklessness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was driving his car on a highway, passing other vehicles. While doing so, he struck and killed the defendant in error's husband…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
Three thousand dollars damages were recovered by the plaintiff in this case for the wrongful death of her husband occasioned by the alleged negligent operation of an automobile by plaintiff in error. The evidence as a whole tends to show that plaintiff in error was driving his car along the highway, passing cars from time to time which were ahead of him in the lane of traffic; that while so driving that he struck the husband of defendant in error, killing him as the latter was in the act of crossing the highway from his home to a mail box.
■ There is substantial evidence that Rhodes, the driver of the car causing the death complained of, was going fast enough to keep ahead of all the other cars going in the same direction, and that when he struck deceased, that he knocked the injured man’s body some twenty feet by the impact.
Under the circumstances it was a question for the jury to say whether or not the defendant in driving his car as he did, was operating his car in a reckless manner when the fatal injuries were inflicted. And so was the question of the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased. A careful review of the record discloses no reversible error.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelfer, 118 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1934)…d to provide for the appropriation for the fiscal year 1933-1934 to be made part of a current budget and supported by a current tax levy, the time having expired to apply the same to the 1933 assessment roll, City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 558; State, ex rel. Klemm, v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667, 150 Sou. Rep. 517; State, ex rel. Bush, v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800. Judgment in accordance with foregoing opinion will be entered. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J.…
-
State v. Harrison, 145 Fla. 727 (Fla. 1941)…in the case at bar,, and therefore, revivor is the exclusive remedy; [*730] that the decisions and dicta in Ellison v. Allen (8 Fla. 206), Bush v. Adams (22 Fla. 177), Anderson v. Agnew (38 Fla. 30, 20 So. 766), and Schilling v. Biggs (108 Fla. 351, 146 So. 558), require the revivor to be within the eight-month period limited by Section 120 of the 1933 Probate Act, supra, for presentation to prevent becoming barred. We cannot agree with the relator’s contention. In Springer v. Aikin, supra, the plaintiffs…
-
Bowen v. State, 114 Fla. 742 (Fla. 1934)…e town under authority of Chapter 13327, Acts of 1927, and thereafter duly validated by judicial proceedings. The peremptory writ was properly awarded on the authority of Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451; City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455,146 Sou. Rep. 558; Klemm v. Davenport, 100 Fla. 627, 129 Sou. Rep. 904, 70 A. L. R. 156; Rountree v. State, ex rel. Georgia Bond & Mtge. Co., 102 Fla. 246, 135 Sou. Rep. 888; State, ex rel. Dos Amigos, Inc., v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 Sou. Rep. 533; State, ex rel.…