KEITH BASDEN, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, JAMES L. FLOYD, JR., AND HIS NATURAL MOTHER, ISABELLE BASDEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLIFFORD E. LOWERY, APPELLEE
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 court held that a jury could reasonably infer negligence from a driver's failure to see a child on a busy street, thus precluding summary judgment.
The plaintiff's child was struck by the defendant's automobile. The defendant was aware of children in the area but failed to see the child until imme…
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 Reasonable Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the trial court from an adverse summary final judgment. The appellant contends there *266was a reasonable inference from the admissions in the deposition wherein a jury could have determined that the appellee-defendant was negligent in the operation of an automobile, resulting in the striking of a minor child, by failing to give due attention to the roadway and area surrounding same.
In determining the propriety of the motion for summary judgment, all reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the party moved against. See: Jaworski v. City of Opa Locka, Fla.App. 1964, 170 So.2d 484; Anderson v. Morgan, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 845. It is incumbent upon a defendant, when moving for a summary judgment, to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, [See: Tucker v. American Employers’ Insurance Company, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 437; Haynes v. Littleford, Fla.App. 1965, 173 So.2d 477] and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
From the deposition of the defendant, it is apparent that he was proceeding on a heavily travelled four-lane street in the vicinity of a housing development, wherein there were small children about [of which he was aware], and yet he failed to see the child until he was immediately in front of his automobile; although it was without dispute that the child had crossed at least three lanes of traffic from the left of the driver into the path of the automobile, without the defendant seeing him. It is clearly a reasonable inference that the defendant was guilty of inattention under the circumstances, and the issue should have been resolved by a jury. Sec: Ehrens v. Miami Transit Company, 155 Fla. 394, 20 So.2d 261; Nabelski v. Turner, Fla. App.1965, 173 So.2d 729; Gabbard v. Knight, 202 Va. 40, 116 S.E.2d 73.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final judgment here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiggen v. Bethel Apostolic Temple, 192 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…Stat., F.S.A. and that his statement made to the investigating officer was inadmissible into evidence. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. . Basden v. Lowery, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 265; Purdue v. Vogelsang, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 902; Kravitz v. Morse Auto Rentals, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 619; Greenfield v. Frantz, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 878. See also Williams v. Hutson, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 558. . Radtke v. Loud,…
-
Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…and denied that he had paid any monies to Daniel Edgington, Herbert Ed-gington or Oakes directly or indirectly. The rule as to summary judgments for defendants has too often been stated to need repetition here. See Basden v. Lowery, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So. 2d 265. Applying these principles to the record before us, it is apparent that by giving the benefit of all inferences to the plaintiff the evidence is such that it does not refute the existence of a conspiracy in which the appellee Daniel Edgington parti…
-
ST. Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Edith Rosenblatt, 367 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…nduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. v. McGlamery, 341 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cunningham v. Romano, 278 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1973); Basden v. Lowery, 182 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Since the case is governed by the principle of comparative negligence, our determination to this effect requires that the issue of the defendants’ liability be submitted to a jury. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Ehrans v. Miami Transit Co., 155 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1944)
- Sula P. Haynes v. Littleford, 173 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Tucker v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co., 171 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Nabelski v. Turner, 173 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Marini v. The Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 173 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Sigmund T. Jaworski v. The City OF OPA Locka, 170 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Anderson v. Morton Morgan, 172 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)