CONRAD W. MILKS, APPELLANT,
v.
R. H. WRIGHT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, EDGAR SCIPPIO AND WILLIAM B. LOWE, 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 three-vehicle rear-end collision case, the appellant (defendant Milks) challenged the directed verdict against him on liability and in favor of his co-defendants. The Florida appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial judge's direction of verdicts and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding liability.
The court affirmed the directed verdict against the appellant on liability, finding no error in a rear-end collision case. The court also found no error in the directed verdict in favor of the co-defendants, as Scippio did not make a sudden stop and the evidence showed the appellant's vehicle caused the collision sequence.
“From an examination of the record, no error has been made to appear in the direction of the verdict on liability, this being a rear-end collision.”
Establishes that in rear-end collisions, the directed verdict against the rear vehicle driver is proper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA three-vehicle accident occurred in which the appellant's vehicle struck the second vehicle (in which plaintiff Lowe was riding), which in turn was d…
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 On Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal arises out of a three-vehicle accident, in which the appellant [one of the defendants in the trial court] appeals and assigns as error the direction of a verdict against him as to liability, and the direction of a verdict in favor of the co-defendants, the appellees, Edgar Scip-pio and R. H. Wright, Inc. Following the directions of the verdicts, the cause was submitted to the jury as to damages, and the jury returned a verdict in favor •of the plaintiff, the appellee William B. Lowe.
From an examination of the record, no error has been made to appear in the direction of the verdict on liability, this being a rear-end collision. See: Vasquez v. Stark, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 905. Neither has error been made to appear by the appellant in the direction of the verdict in favor of his co-defendants, Wright, Inc., and Scippio, in that it is apparent that Scippio [as the driver of the first vehicle] did not come to a sudden or unexpected stop and it appears that the second vehicle [in which the plaintiff was riding] was able to come to a stop without hitting the first, when the vehicle driven by the appellant crashed into the second vehicle and drove it into the first. A co-defendant has no right to raise the question of a directed verdict in favor of another co-defendant. See: Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 575; Otis Elevator Company v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 19; Nutt v. James City, Inc., Fla. App.1964, 162 So.2d 700, opinion filed March 10, 1964. However, the plaintiff has cross-assigned error in the direction of this verdict and we have reviewed this action on the part of the trial judge, under this cross-assignment of error, and find no error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- Adele Nutt v. James City, Inc., 162 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Vasquez v. Stark, 155 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 137 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)