W. E. CORNELL, SR.,
v.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI
The writ of error brings for review a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for damage for personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant.
*193The record shows that if the defendant was' guilty of any negligence at all the plaintiff materially contributed to the cause of the injury by his own negligence and was, therefore, barred from recovery.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
(concurring). — I think there has been a confusion in this case between the doctrines of contributory negligence and proximate cause. My view is that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury was his attempt to close by manual force the cylindrical slide on door of the night deposit box maintained by the bank when ordinary prudence dictated that before he undertook to do so with his hand he should have assured himself that the box could have been closed by such means without injury to himself. See Quinn v. Smith 57 Fed. (2d) 784. Contributory negligence implies' that the defendant was guilty of some negligence that was the proximate cause of the injury but that plaintiff’s negligence contributed thereto.
Davis, J.
(concurring). — I think there has been a confusion in this case between the doctrines of contributory negligence and proximate cause. My view is that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury was his attempt to close by manual force the cylindrical slide on door of the night deposit box maintained by the bank when ordinary prudence dictated that before he undertook to do so with his hand he should have assured himself that the box could have been closed by such means without injury to himself. See Quinn v. Smith 57 Fed. (2d) 784. Contributory negligence implies' that the defendant was guilty of some negligence that was the proximate cause of the injury but that plaintiff’s negligence contributed thereto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1948)…that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant-appellant’s counsel the opening and closing arguments to the jury under the provisions of Section 918.09, F.S.A.; Crosby v. State, 90 Florida 381, 106 So. 741, and Haddock v. State, 121 Fla. 167, 163 So. 482. We have studied the record and re-examined the authorities cited in light of' the contention made. It is true that the defendant below adduced no witnesses other than himself, but did offer and there was received in his behalf a photograph which te…
-
Birge v. State, 92 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1957)…presented was not sufficient to justify, denying to appellant the right to have his counsel close the -arguments. Actually th,e State does [*822] not contend that it was. Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So. 2d 201; Haddock v. State, 121 Fla. 167, 163 So. 482. In regard to the State’s insistence on appeal that the transcript of the trial record fails to show specifically at the conclusion of the evidence that appellant was not accorded the right to open and close, we are of the view that the rule announ…
-
Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1939)…d and the case is here for review on eighty-six distinct assignments of error in the briefs presented or argued under nine separate questions. This case is here on the third writ of error. The case at bar is reported the first times in 121 Fla. 167, 163 So. 482; 129 Fla. 701, 176 So. 782. [*137] When the case was reversed by this Court and a mandate sent down, counsel for the defendant applied to the trial court for leave and authority to withdraw the plea of not guilty then appearing of record and to file…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence