JEANNETTE C. POPE AND W. MONROE POPE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RONALD E. KAY, 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 plaintiff-driver was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, affirming the summary judgment for the defendant.
Plaintiffs sued the defendant for personal injuries and damages arising from an automobile collision. The defendant denied negligence and raised the a…
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 Loss Of Consortium cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from the entry of a summary final judgment.
The appellants, Jeannette C. Pope and W. Monroe Pope, her husband, were plaintiffs in an action in the circuit court. Their complaint alleged that the defendant, Ronald E. Kay, was guilty of operating his automobile in such a reckless and negligent manner, through an intersection that it struck the automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff, Jeannette C. Pope, causing her to suffer personal injuries and damages to her automobile. The husband asked for his wife’s medical expenses and loss of consortium.
The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint and pleaded the affirmative. defense of contributory negligence and sole negligence on the part of the plaintiff-driver.
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment, alleging that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, came on to be heard upon the complaint, answer and plaintiffs’ depositions. The trial court entered its order granting the defendant’s motion.
After indulging in every reasonable presumption on behalf of the' plaintiffs it conclusively appears from the facts which were established without material issue that *622the plaintiff-driver was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and, therefore, there was no error in the entry of summary final judgment in favor of the the defendant. McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 437; Palov v. Fla. Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 780; Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 53; Fields v. Quillian, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 230.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fields v. Quillian, 74 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1954)
- Gertrude Jacobs and Charles Jacobs v. Claughton, 97 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Palov v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 107 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- McDONALD v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 113 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Hogan v. Norfleet, 113 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)