CARL G. HODELL, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD B. SNYDER, 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.
The court held that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance.
Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by a car while crossing a boulevard at a designated crossing. The driver saw the plaintiff when he was 60-70 feet …
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below, from a judgment for defendants based on a jury verdict. Appellant sued for damages for injuries he received as a pedestrian when struck by an automobile. The determinative question is whether, on the facts presented, a requested charge on the doctrine of last clear chance should have been given.
The evidence disclosed that plaintiff was crossing Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, from west to east, at 1:00 o’clock A.M., at a designated pedestrian crossing,1 with benefit of a pedestrian controlled traffic light which he had manually operated, and which on conflicting evidence could be found to have shown green for him and red for traffic, when he was struck by an automobile, whose driver, the defendant Snyder, allegedly employed by the corporate defendants, proceeding north at 25 to 30 miles per hour, saw plaintiff in his path when some 60 to 70 feet away, and took no action to avoid the collision with the pedestrian.
Appellant’s counsel submitted an appropriate charge on the doctrine of last clear chance which the trial judge refused. To charge the jury on negligence and contributory negligence, and to refuse to charge on the doctrine of last clear chance under the circumstances presented, was error for which a new trial should be granted. See Lindsay v. Thomas, 128 Fla. 293, 174 So. 418; Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270, 9 So.2d 369; Wawner v. Sellic Stone Studio, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 574; Springer v. Morris, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 781; Nelson v. Ziegler, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 780; Rosenfeld v. Knowlton, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 90. See, also, King v. Griner, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 177.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlon A. James and Donald v. James, 133 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1961)…he subject in Merchants Transportation Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401. See also, Lindsay v. Thomas, 128 Fla. 293, 174 So. 418; Brandt v. Dodd, 150 Fla. 635, 8 So. 2d 471; Springer v. Morris, Fla., 74 So. 2d 781; Hodell v. Snyder, Fla.App., 122 So. 2d 36. We now measure the factual situation in the instant case against the specific requirements which we have recited above. It can be said from the evidence that the plaintiff Mrs. James had placed herself in a position of peril. From the evidence als…
-
Connolly v. Wiley C. Steakley, 197 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1967)…. Harrell, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 350; Miller v. Ungar, 1941, 149 Fla. 79, 5 So. 2d 598, and Category Three cases, Wawner v. Sellic Stone-Studio, Fla.1939, 74 So. 2d 574; Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 891; Hodell v. Snyder, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 36; Parker v. Perfection Cooperative-Dairies, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 645; Purdue v. Vogelsang, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 902. Apparently, no case involving application of the rule in the circumstance of Category One has been the subject of review by t…
-
Melita Anne Thornton v. Elliott, 288 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1973)…f Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed per curiam, citing Falnes v. Kaplan, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 377, 379. Falnes holds that a last clear chance instruction may or may not be granted, depending on the particular facts. See Hodell v. Snyder, Fla.App.3d, 122 So. 2d 36, which appears on all fours with the instant case. In petition for rehearing in this case which we granted Petitioner, it appears that the Fourth District Court rendered Jones v. Hoffman, Fla.App., 272 So. 2d 529, while the instant case was pending…
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
- Nelson v. Ziegler, 89 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1956)
- Lindsay v. Mrs. M. J. Thomas, 128 Fla. 293 (Fla. 1937)
- Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1942)
- Wawner v. Sellic Stone Studio, 74 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Springer v. Morris, 74 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1954)
- King v. Griner, 60 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1952)
- Fairbanks v. Robertson, 151 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1942)
- Rosenfeld v. Knowlton, 110 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)