JOSEPH MANGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID H. AMOS, JR., APPELLEE
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.
A pedestrian struck by a car at a traffic intersection sued the driver for negligence. The jury found the driver not liable, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence when no evidence supported it. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts presented a proper case for jury submission on both negligence and contributory negligence.
The trial judge did not err in submitting both negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. The facts presented a typical case warranting jury submission on both issues, as the evidence, including plaintiff's deposition testimony suggesting he may have started crossing on an amber light and his admission that he ran in front of another car, was sufficient to support the instruction.
“the plaintiff, in his argument to this question, does not tell the whole story. From a pretrial deposition of plaintiff that was read to him in the presence of the jury, the jury could have inferred that the plaintiff started to cross the street when the traffic light was on amber and that it changed to red as he reached the center line of the intersection.”
Establishes that evidence in plaintiff's own deposition supported a finding of contributory negligence despite plaintiff's trial testimony about a favorable light.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff-appellant, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant-appellee's car while crossing a street intersection at night. Plaintiff testified he starte…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*341] ROBERTS, Justice.
Plaintiff-appellant, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant-appellee’s car while crossing a street intersection at night, and brought the instant suit to recover for his injuries. The cause was submitted to the jury on the issues of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, and a verdict finding the defendant not guilty was returned and judgment entered. This appeal by plaintiff followed.
The principal contention made here by plaintiff is .that the trial judge erred in charging the jury on the issue of contributory negligence “where there was no competent substantial evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.” The gist of his argument here is that the plaintiff’s testimony showed that he started across the six-lane intersection when the traffic light was in his favor; that the plaintiff’s rights at the intersection were superior to those of the defendant; that the defendant had the positive duty of seeing the appellant and of not trying to “race away from the starting gate”; and that “having created the perilous situation, [the defendant] should not be allowed to have the jury charged that appellant [plaintiff] must act as a reasonable man and avoid the accident.”
Whether a charge on the issue of contributory negligence would be proper in the situation hypothesized by plaintiff need not be decided since the plaintiff, in his argument to this question, does not tell the whole story. From a pretrial deposition of plaintiff that was read to him in the presence of the jury, the jury could have inferred that the plaintiff started to cross the street when the traffic light was on amber and that it changed to red as he reached the center line of the intersection. The plaintiff also said that he got excited and ran in front of a car to the left of defendant’s car and then jumped for the curb in front of defendant’s car. It is admitted that the defendant did not move forward until after the light had changed to green, that the car to' defendant’s left moved ahead first, that the speed of defendant’s car never exceeded ten miles per hour, and that defendant did not see the plaintiff until a moment after the impact.
We think the facts here made out a typical case for submission to the jury of the issues of negligence and contributory negligence, and we find no error in the trial judge’s so doing.
The other questions argued here — even if it be assumed that they were within the purview of the assignments of error — disclose no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.