PAULA S. STOLMAKER AND BERNARD B. STOLMAKER, APPELLANTS,
v.
WESLEY L. BOWERMAN AND DONALD A. BOWERMAN, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a directed verdict for the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant-driver's negligence caused the accident.
No, the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant-driver's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.
“It is well settled that the mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish the negligence óf anyone.”
Establishes the legal principle that an accident alone does not prove negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were passengers in a car that collided with a car driven by the appellee. Separate suits were filed but tried together. At the close of the…
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants were passengers in an automobile involved in a collision at a street intersection. Separate suits were filed but were jointly tried and appealed. Appellees were the driver and owner respectively of the other car involved. At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants. The only question presented to us is whether the plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to prove the negligent operation of the automobile driven by defendant-driver.
It is well settled that the mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish the negligence óf anyone. Ward v. Everett, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So.2d 879. This is true even though the plaintiffs are passengers and are not chargeable with the possible contributory negligence of the driver of the car in which they are riding. A careful reading of the record in this case reveals that there was an accident and that someone may have been negligent. After giving the plaintiffs the benefit of every inference that might have been made by reasonable men from the facts proved it does not appear that the negligence, if any, of the defendant-driver was the proximate cause of the collision. When negligence is not established it is the duty of the trial court to direct a verdict against the party having the burden of such proof. See Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. 303; Duncan v. Growers Equipment Co., 146 Fla. 516, 1 So.2d 458.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Dillon, 305 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…or a new trial on liability. We cannot agree. Appellants argue that “the mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish negligence of anyone” [citing Ward v. Everett, 1941, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So. 2d 879; Stolmaker v. Bowerman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 659]. While we agree totally with that proposition of law, we think that from the weight of the direct and circumstantial evidence introduced at trial, the jury verdict finding negligence was supported by substantial competent evidence. Therefore, we c…
-
E. H. Russell and his wife v. Jacksonville GAS Corp., 117 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 492; Bruce Const. Corp. v. State Exchange Bank, Fla.1958, 102 So. 2d 288. . Yoelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 403; Byers v. Gunn, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 723. . Stolmaker v. Bowerman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 659. . Jacksonville Journal Co. v. Gilreath, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 865; 38 C.J.S. Gas § 47(d), p. 751. . Jacksonville Journal Co. v. Gilreath, see Note 4. . Carter v. J. Kay Arnold Lumber Co., 1922, 83 Fla. 470, 91 So. 893.…
-
Kinney v. Mosher, 100 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…he views herein expressed. STURGIS, C. J., and FABISINSKI, L. L., A. J., concur. . Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656, 114 So. 429. See: Montgomery v. State, 55 Fla. 97, 45 So. 879; Pepper v. Pepper, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 280; Fenton v. Fenton, Fla.App., 100 So. 2d 659. . F.S. § 697.01, F.S.A. See: Marcus v. Hull, 142 Fla. 306, 195 So. 170; Cary & Co. v. IIyer, 91 Fla. 322, 107 So. 684. . Regero v. Daugherty, Fla.1953, 69 So. 2d 178.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Persis Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1921)
- Ward v. Mrs. Clara. M. Everett, 148 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1941)
- Duncan v. Growers Equip. Co., 146 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1941)