HARRY CHARLES MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY KENSACK, 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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict and judgment for a pedestrian injured by a car, finding no reversible error in the trial court's jury instructions or failure to find contributory negligence as a matter of law.
No, the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's jury instructions or its failure to find contributory negligence as a matter of law.
“The record fails to disclose that the appellant preserved the question of the court's alleged error in charging on the doctrine of last clear chance.”
This quote establishes that a key argument raised by the appellant was not properly preserved for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA pedestrian was struck by a car while crossing a street. The pedestrian sued the driver for damages, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the pe…
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 was an action for damages for personal injuries. The appellee, a pedestrian, was attempting to cross N. W. 27th Avenue from west to east when he was struck by an automobile driven by the appellant-defendant. The issues were tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the appellee-plaintiff and a judgment was entered thereon from which this appeal was taken.
The appellant contends primarily that the court erred in charging the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance; that the charge on last clear chance given was not a correct statement of the law; and that the court erred in failing to find as a matter of law that the appellee was guilty of contributory negligence.
The record fails to disclose that the appellant preserved the question of the court’s alleged error in charging on the doctrine of last clear chance.
As to the sufficiency of the charge on last clear chance given by the court, as well as the other errors assigned and the questions raised, we have examined the record and fail to find wherein the trial judge erred.
The appellant having failed to carry the burden of demonstrating error, it follows that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.