GRADY A. BARNARD, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, CLARA IRENE BARNARD, AND CLARA IRENE BARNARD, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID JOHN CREWS, 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 negligence action where the appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the doctrine inapplicable based on the evidence presented.
No, the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance because the evidence did not support its applicability.
“This doctrine is applicable only where the defendant has the opportunity to avoid injuring the plaintiff.”
Establishes the core requirement for the last clear chance doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, plaintiffs in the original negligence action, sued the appellee (defendant) for injuries sustained when the defendant's automobile str…
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
In this negligence action appellants’ principle grievance is the trial judge’s refusal to charge the jury as to the doctrine of last clear chance. This doctrine is applicable only where the defendant has the opportunity to avoid injuring the plaintiff. Here, the only direct evidence reflects that defendant saw the plaintiff, who was riding a bicycle, when he was fifteen feet away from defendant’s automobile. There is no evidence that plaintiff saw defendant or that plaintiff’s negligence ever ceased. Plaintiff contends that if defendant had kept an alert lookout, he would have seen plaintiff in sufficient time to avoid the accident; however, there was positive evidence of obstructions to defendant’s view. Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in refusing to give the requested charge as to last clear chance.
We have carefully reviewed the other instructions requested by plaintiff and denied by the court, and find an absence of error.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grady A. Barnard v. Crews, 204 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1967)…WHITE, JOSEPH S., Circuit Judge, Retired (concurring specially). I disagree with the statement of the District Court of Appeal regarding the application of the “Last Clear Chance” doctrine, Barnard v. Crews, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 44, however, I can find nothing in the record indicating that petitioner, plaintiff in the trial court, presented instructions upon the subject to the trial judge, and, in addition, only a portion of the testimony taken during the trial has been brough…