ANGELO DI CICCO, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY A. MANASSA, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a directed verdict in an automobile accident case. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no competent substantial evidence to support claims of ordinary or gross negligence.
No, there was no competent substantial evidence from which a jury could lawfully find or infer that the driver was guilty of either ordinary or gross negligence causing the collision.
“There was thus no surviving eyewitness to the accident and no direct evidence as to how the accident occurred.”
Establishes the lack of direct evidence regarding the cause of the accident.
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 was a passenger in a car owned by the defendant, which was being driven by another individual. The accident occurred in Georgia when 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 Ordinary Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Duval County upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in ail automobile accident case. The plaintiff’s complaint contained two counts — one alleging ordinary negligence in the operation of the automobile and the other alleging gross negligence under the Georgia Guest Law. The accident occurred in the State of Georgia, when the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding, and which was owned by the defendant, ran off the road and into a tree. The evidence showed that the plaintiff and the defendant were both asleep at the time of the accident, and that the driver .and another passenger died in the collision. There *920was thus no surviving eyewitness to the accident and no direct evidence as to how the accident occurred. We have carefully examined the record in this case in the light of the Georgia statutes and court decisions and have reached the conclusion that there is no competent substantial evidence therein from which the jury could have lawfully found or inferred that the driver of the car was guilty of either ordinary or gross negligence causing the collision. In view of this absence of evidence the Circuit Court was correct in directing the verdict for the defendant at the trial and so we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K„ and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Di Cicco v. Manassa, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1959)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 108 So. 2d 919.…