JULIUS NACKMAN, BY HIS GUARDIAN, BEATRICE NACKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACQUELINE MIESSEN AND ROBERT A. MIESSEN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant in a personal injury case, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements necessary to apply the doctrine of last clear chance.
No, the summary judgment was not erroneous because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of the doctrine of last clear chance.
“The major issue on this appeal is the correctness of the summary judgment.”
Identifies the central legal question before the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries, but the trial court grante…
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by the plaintiff in the court below is from a summary judgment in an action for personal injuries sustained when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by an automobile driven by the appellee.
The major issue on this appeal is the correctness of the summary judgment. The appellant contends that it was erroneous since the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable on all the facts and would preclude such a determination. In order to justify application of the last clear chance rule, there must be present adequate evi-dentiary support for each of the essential elements of the rule. The trial judge found, and we think correctly, that there was no clear factual support for an inference that the appellee driver saw or reasonably should have seen the appellant’s ward sufficiently in advance of the impact to enable her to avoid the injury. See Wilde v. Kelly, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 713; Douglas v. Hackney, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 301.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Haller, 177 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…last clear chance doctrine. The evidence does not clearly show that the defendant had the opportunity by the exercise of reasonable care to save the plaintiff from harm or that she failed to exercise such care. See Nackman v. Miessen, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 711. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment is therefore Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Douglas v. Hackney, 133 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1961)
- Wilde v. Kelly, 160 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)