DAVID GEORGE HYDE AND LLOYD G. HYDE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVIS & MARR SUPPLY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a guest passenger suing for damages from a car collision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the issue of contributory negligence was a question of fact for the jury.
Yes, the trial court was correct in denying the motion for a directed verdict on contributory negligence because the facts presented allowed for different conclusions by reasonable people, making it a jury question.
“We have carefully reviewed the testimony and exhibits adduced at the trial and conclude that the question of appellants' contributory negligence arises on a state of facts from which reasonable men might draw different conclusions, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury for its decision.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the jury's role in deciding the contributory negligence issue.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a guest passenger, sued for damages resulting from a collision. The collision was allegedly caused by the negligent operation of a vehi…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, a guest passenger in a motor vehicle driven by another, brought this action for damages sustained in a collision resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a vehicle owned by appellee and operated by one to whom it had been entrusted. Appellee interposed the defenses of general denial and contributory negligence. From a jugment for appellee entered upon the jury’s verdict, this appeal is taken.
The sole point on appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling denying appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence made after all evidence had been submitted and the case closed.
We have carefully reviewed the testimony and exhibits adduced at the trial and conclude that the question of appellants’ contributory negligence arises on a state of facts from which reasonable men might draw different conclusions, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury for its decision.1 Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bohanan, 66 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1953)
- Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Bennie LE REA v. State, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Zack Smart v. Masker, 113 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)