GEORGE ABRAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
LELA B. GRESHAM AND GRESHAM'S GARAGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Plaintiff Abrams, a passenger injured in an automobile accident, appealed from a directed verdict for defendants entered after he presented his evidence. The court reversed, holding that conflicting evidence about negligence and proximate cause precluded the trial court from directing a verdict and required the case to proceed to jury determination.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict because conflicting evidence existed regarding negligence and proximate cause, which were questions for the jury to resolve. Under comparative negligence principles, plaintiff could recover even if his driver's negligence combined with defendant's negligence to cause the collision.
“If the jury should believe and accept the latter version they would be entitled to find for the defendants. If they believed and accepted the former version, their finding could be for the plaintiff.”
Establishes that the two conflicting versions of the accident both had evidentiary support, making the case one for jury determination rather than directed verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA car driven by Schulman (carrying passenger Abrams) approached Southwest Twelfth Avenue in Miami from the east and turned partially left to stop befo…
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 Automobile Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff below in an action to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile accident, appeals from a judgment entered on a verdict which the court directed for defendants at the close of the presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence in a jury trial.
The accident occurred in Miami on Southwest Twelfth Avenue, a two-way street having four lanes for traffic. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by one Schulman which approached Twelfth Avenue from an easterly direction. The defendant Gresham was driving northward on Southwest Twelfth Avenue. The car in which the plaintiff was riding entered Twelfth Avenue, proceeded north a short distance, and, in preparation for entering a side street to the west, turned partially to the left and stopped. A rear-end collision followed with the right front of the Gresham car striking the Schulman car at the point of the left rear door. The evidence of how the accident occurred was in conflict. One version was that the car in which the plaintiff was riding stopped before proceeding into Twelfth Avenue, went directly into the left or center northbound lane, proceeded the short distance therein and then came to a stop preparatory to proceeding to the west; that it was stopped there for some time (the plaintiff saying “a few seconds” and the driver of that car saying twenty to thirty seconds), and was struck by the Gresham car traveling north on Twelfth Avenue. The other version was that the car in which the plaintiff was riding ignored the stop sign and proceeded into Twelfth Avenue without stopping and at a rate of 25 miles per hour, turned north, then cut across into the left-hand lane in front of and so close to the Gresham car that it was unable to stop or avoid collision. If the jury should believe and accept the latter version they would be entitled to find for the defendants. If they believed and accepted the former version, their finding could be for the plaintiff. See Rianhard *208v. Rice, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 730. In order for the plaintiff to recover it was not necessary that the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding be found entirely free of negligence. If negligence of the two drivers combined to produce and proximately cause the result, the plaintiff could recover from the defendant driver and owner of the Gresham car. See Kokotoff v. Higman, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 166. On the conflicting evidence, the questions of negligence and proximate cause were for the jury.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pascale v. Fed. Express Corp., 656 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…wed in this context, the Greenbergs would bear some degree of legal responsibility for the resulting damages to Pascale. Because the evidence was conflicting, negligence and proximate cause were necessarily questions for the jury. Abrams v. Gresham, 131 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the Greenbergs. The next issue to be determined is whether the erroneous direction of a verdict in favor of the Greenbergs was a harmful error requiring rever…
-
Harvey v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 136 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…as a matter of law, that the defendants were entitled to a judgment. Plaintiff, appellant here, contends that the negligence of his host-driver may not be imputed to him. This point is well taken. See: Abrams v. Gresham, et [*11] al., Fla.App.1961, 131 So. 2d 207. The appellant further contends that it was a jury-question as to whether or not the defendant Crow, as the driver of the truck approaching an intersection with a flashing caution light, was negligent in admittedly not decreasing his rate of speed,…
-
Abrams v. Gresham, 136 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…F.A.R. 3.2(f), prior to talcing the appeal plaintiff paid a cost judgment which had been entered by the trial court. We reversed the judgment entered on the directed verdict, and remanded the cause for a new trial (Abrams v. Gresham, Fla. App.1961, 131 So. 2d 207). The plaintiff-appellant moved in the trial court to have the appellate costs taxed, pursuant to F.A. R. 3.16(b), and submitted an affidavit listing the following: “Filing Fees $28.50 Satisfaction of Defendants’ Cost Judgment 107.90 Original and co…
Authorities Cited
- Rianhard v. Rice, 119 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Kokotoff v. Higman, 101 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)