MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER M. FORD AND MABEL FORD, HIS WIFE, 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.
Miami Transit Company appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to Mabel Ford for injuries allegedly sustained when she was thrown backward by a sudden bus stop. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of negligence because a sudden stop alone, without evidence of the driver's negligent act or omission, does not establish actionable negligence.
The appellate court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish negligence. A sudden or abrupt stop of a bus, standing alone without evidence of some negligent act or omission by the driver, does not constitute sufficient evidence of negligence to warrant submission to a jury. The court reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment non obstante veredicto for the appellant.
“the sudden stopping of the bus was not a basis for a finding that the bus was negligently operated, in the absence of other evidence, relating to the stop, of some act of commission or omission by the driver which together with the 'sudden' stop would suffice to show a violation of the carrier's duty”
Establishes the legal standard that a sudden stop alone is insufficient to prove negligence without evidence of a specific negligent act or omission by the driver.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMabel Ford boarded a Miami Transit Company bus on March 21, 1960, at noon and was proceeding to a seat when the bus suddenly braked, throwing her back…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee, Mabel Ford, joined by her husband, Walter M. Ford, brought suit against the appellant for damages for personal injuries, allegedly incurred by her while a passenger in the appellant’s bus. The cause proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict of $10,000.00 for the appellee-wife and $3,500.-00 for the appellee-husband.
The sole question raised on appeal is whether or not the appellee, Mabel Ford, established any actionable negligence on the part of the appellant which would preclude the entry of a directed verdict for the appellant.
The evidence, as reflected by the record on appeal, reveals that Mabel Ford had boarded a Miami Transit Company bus at about 12:00 o’clock noon on March 21, 1960; paid her fare and was proceeding to a seat when, according to Mabel Ford: “ * * * Well, he suddenly applied the brakes and if threw me backwards — and I sort of went backwards to the side and I hit that bar in the back of the driver’s seat. * * * She claimed she didn’t know the reason for the sudden stop, but further testified the bus driver said: “ * * * I am sorry, I had to stop suddenly to keep from running into a car.”. This was the entire testimony as to the facts surrounding the accident. This testimony [that the bus stopped suddenly without a showing of reason or circumstances] does not constitute sufficient evidence to establish any negligence on the part of the bus driver which would warrant the cause being submitted to a jury. As this court said, in Blackman v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 128:
******
“Ruling out stops of extraordinary violence, not incidental to ordinary travel, as inapplicable to the stop which occurred here, the sudden stopping of the bus was not a basis for a finding that the bus was negligently operated, in the absence of other evidence, relating to the stop, of some act of commission or omission by the driver which together with the ‘sudden’ stop would suffice to show a violation of the carrier’s duty. This is so because a sudden or abrupt stop, which could be the result of negligent operation, could as well result from conditions and circumstances making it entirely proper and free of any negligence.”
******
This w.as also quoted with approval in Jacksonville Coach Company v. Rivers, Fla.1962, 144 So.2d 308. In fairness to the trial judge, it is pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling in Jacksonville Coach Company v. Rivers, supra, [which clarified the law on this point] had not been rendered at the time of the trial in the instant cause. Therefore, he did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s opinion at the time he rendered his order denying the motion for the judgment non obstante veredicto.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed with directions to grant the appellant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Reversed, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Coral Gables & City of Coral Gables v. Patty, 162 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…“not incidental to ordinary travel.” I feel that the rule laid down in Blackman v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 128, Jacksonville Coach Company v. Rivers, Fla. 1962, 144 So. 2d 308, and Miami Transit Company v. Ford, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 261, is controlling and that the facts in the case at bar do not establish an exception to the rule. What the appellants could be called upon to rebut, on a record as barren of evidence of negligence as the one in the case at bar, casts one into the rea…
-
Nicholson v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 163 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…ndefinite evidence touching the speed of the bus; the same failure to show any act of commission or omission which, together with the sudden stop, would demonstrate a violation of the carrier’s duty.” In Miami Transit Company v. Ford, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 261, where the facts were almost identical with the instant case, the record shows: “The evidence, as reflected by the record on appeal, reveals that Mabel Ford had boarded a Miami Transit Company bus at about 12:00 o’clock noon on March 21, 1960; paid…
-
Artigas v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Metro. Dade Cnty., 541 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Appellant fell after boarding a bus, while on her way to her seat. As the facts of the present case are indistinguishable in any material sense from those in Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 159 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), the summary judgment in favor of appellee is affirmed. Although appellant relies in part on statements by the bus driver in order to suggest a violation of the procedures outlined in the bus operator’s manual, the text of the man…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blackman v. Miami Transit Co., 125 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Jacksonville Coach Co. v. Rivers, 144 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1962)
- Miami Transit Co. v. Ford, 155 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)