HUBERT WATSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Maximo Moorings Marine Ctr., Inc. v. Walke, 196 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
  …ng, with nothing to distract his attention from it, is no excuse for his failure to observe the 'hazard and the diversion rule is not applicable under such circumstances. * * ” See also Tomlinson v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 801. Defendant’s counsel objected to the -giving of this instruction and, although this • court would have objected at a different -point in the trial, .defendant’s objection was sufficient to preserve the point for appeal. ‘.Since the instruction was i…
• Stueber v. Maint., Inc., 205 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
  …ficient cause” or distraction to permit the question of contributory negligence to go to the jury must be decided by the court' in the first instance according to the facts of each case. Tomlinson v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 801, 803. In the present case, at the time of the accident the plaintiff was performing the ordinary duties of his employment, although he was working against a deadline. The plaintiff did not avoid the dangerous condition at the threshold of the room…
• Allied Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Saling, 227 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
  …e price he might pay for the article of furniture. A lack of attentiveness to one’s surroundings due to a preoccupation of this type has been held in Stueber v. Maintenance, Inc., supra, and Tomlinson v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 801, as not being a sufficient cause to invoke the distraction rule. Although Deane v. Johnston, supra, is considered as the case which introduced the distraction rule to this jurisdiction, the substance of the rule was recognized [but not by such name…