RICHARD LEROY SARGENT, APPELLANT,
v.
LEAH LATANO AND JOE LATANO, HER HUSBAND, 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.
In this personal injury case arising from a traffic accident, the defendant-driver appealed a jury verdict finding him liable after he admittedly ran through a stop sign. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's argument that he was entitled to a directed verdict based on mechanical failure of the vehicle.
The court held that a directed verdict was improper because there was extensive evidence of negligence and conflicting evidence regarding the mechanical failure defense. The jury could reasonably have found that the defendant-driver had notice of the allegedly defective brakes given his extended use of the vehicle. The trial court properly refused the requested jury instruction.
“Because the evidence and the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence were in conflict, a directed verdict would have been improper in the instant case.”
Establishes that conflicting evidence on negligence and causation requires jury consideration 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 intelligenceThe defendant-driver admitted running through a stop sign, causing an accident that injured the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed mechanical failure (…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the defendant-driver in an action for personal injury resulting from an accident in which the defendant admittedly ran through a stop sign. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and final judgment was entered thereonv This appeal followed.
Appellant has presented seven points on appeal. The first three are directed to rulings of the trial judge in the conduct of the trial. It is sufficient for us to say that we' have examined the record and that we do not feel that any one of the rulings constitute reversible error. A consideration of all of the rulings complained of does not convince us that the accumulative effect was such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
Defendant makes his main thrust upon his contention that he was entitled to a directed verdict upon the holding in Blanford v. Nourse, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 830. In that case we upheld a directed verdict for a defendant-driver where the record established the undisputed fact that the defendant had no advance knowledge of a defect in the mechanism of the vehicle. It conclusively appeared that the defendant was not guilty of negligence and that the accident occurred because of the defective mechanical condition of the car. That case is readily distinguished from the present one where there was extensive evidence of negligence and a defense of mechanical failure upon conflicting evidence. Because the evidence and the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence were in conflict, a directed verdict would have been improper in the instant case. Further, it appears without dispute that the defendant-driver had been using the automobile involved over an extended period of time. Therefore, the jury could have found that the defendant-driver had notice of the allegedly defective brakes.
Appellant’s last point is directed to an instruction which he requested and which *780the court refused to give. This instruction was drawn in part from Blanford v. Nourse, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 830, which is discussed above. We have examined the instruction and find that the «court properly refused the same because it did not correctly state the law applicable to the facts in this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sargent v. Latano, 165 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1964)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 158 So. 2d 779.…
Authorities Cited
- Blanford v. Frederic Russell Nourse and William Edward Lambert, 120 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)