ALVIN B. SAUCER ET AL., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN T. WELCH ET UX., 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.
In this personal injury tort case, plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of defendants after a motor vehicle accident involving a minor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a jury instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance, finding insufficient evidence to support its application.
The trial court properly denied the last clear chance instruction because the evidence was insufficient to establish the essential elements of that doctrine. The court also found no prejudicial error in the trial court's evidentiary ruling or in the denial of the other requested instruction.
“Such instruction should never be given unless the evidence clearly demonstrates its applicability.”
Establishes the high threshold for when a last clear chance instruction may be given to a jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant. The case proceeded t…
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 Ordinary Prudence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs have appealed a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict rendered in favor of defendants. The action is in tort seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff as a result of the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle by defendant.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their request for an instruction to the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance. We have carefully examined the evidence adduced at the trial but find that it, together with all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, is insufficient to establish the presence of those elements defined in the case of James v. Keene1 as essential to the doctrine of last clear chance. Such instruction should never be given unless the evidence clearly demonstrates its applicability.2 From the foregoing we conclude that the trial court acted in the exercise of its lawful discretion and in accordance with established principles of law when it denied appellants’ request for the instruction in question.
*834We have carefully considered appellants’ remaining points on appeal by which they challenge the correctness of the court’s ruling on the admission of one item of evidence, and in denying another requested instruction to the jury. It is our view that appellants have failed to demonstrate prejudicial error in either of the rulings of which complaint is made.
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rouse v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 220 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ance. We hold that this was correct. It was within the province of the trial judge to resolve, as a matter of law, that the evidence presented could not possibly justify application of the last clear chance rationale. Saucer v. Welch, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 833; Gilman v. Rupert, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 746. After hearing the expert testimony from the witness, McCray, the court properly concluded that there was no possible way in which the appellant could have been extricated from the situation. Even at t…
-
Saucer v. Welch, 194 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 186 So. 2d 833.…
Authorities Cited
- Marlon A. James and Donald v. James, 133 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1961)
- Yousko v. Vogt, 63 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1953)