LOUIS N. ALFASSA, APPELLANT,
v.
GERTRUDE HOFFNER, 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.
In this automobile accident case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's testimony did not constitute an admission of negligence as a matter of law and that both negligence and contributory negligence were questions properly left to the jury.
The defendant's testimony did not constitute an admission of negligence as a matter of law. Both negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff were jury questions that should have been submitted to the jury rather than decided by directed verdict.
“Our examination of the record leads to the conclusion that negligence of the defendant was not established as a matter of law, but was a jury question, as likewise was the question of contributory negligence.”
Establishes that the trial court erred in directing a verdict because negligence and contributory negligence were factual questions for the jury.
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 proceeding south on 27th Avenue in Miami and stopped in a left turn lane at a traffic light-controlled intersection, intending to tu…
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 defendant appeals from an adverse judgment in an automobile accident case. The plaintiff sought recovery for injuries received when her automobile, while making a left turn at an intersection, was involved in a collision with one driven by defendant. Plaintiff was proceeding south on 27th Avenue in Miami. She stopped in a left turn lane at an intersection controlled by a traffic light, intending to turn left. The defendant was proceeding north on 27th Avenue at the prescribed speed of 40 miles per hour in the inside or centermost lane for northbound traffic. Plaintiff attempted to complete her turn and was struck by defendant’s northbound car, which entered the intersection after the light turned amber. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the light was still amber or was red when the collision occurred. There was some testimony it was red for the north-south traffic. However, the defendant testified that when the light changed from green to amber he was 40 feet from the intersection, from which it could be inferred the light was still amber when defendant entered the intersection. Two cars traveling slower had stopped or were slowing to a stop in the right hand north-bound lane when defendant entered the intersection. The conflicts in the evidence and in allowable inferences were material on the questions of negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The trial judge, on his own motion, directed a verdict for the plaintiff, upon expressing the view that the defendant’s testimony amounted to admission of negligence. We can not agree. Our examination of the record leads to the conclusion that negligence of the defendant was not established as a matter of law, but was a jury question, as likewise was the question of contributory negligence. As to the latter, it appeared clearly one for jury determination, in view of the duty of a driver making a left turn to yield to oncoming traffic. On holding it was error not to submit the issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury, it becomes unnecessary for us to decide other questions raised on the appeal.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial.