DENNIS PETERSON AND NORMA PETERSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUBY WHEELUS AND CROWELL WHEELUS, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict finding the defendants grossly negligent. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of gross negligence.
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding the defendants grossly negligent.
“Where the line separating simple and gross negligence is indistinct, the proper course is to leave the question to be decided by the jury.”
This quote establishes the legal principle guiding the court's review of the jury's finding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, Ruby and Crowell Wheelus, brought an action against the defendants, Dennis and Norma Peterson, alleging gross negligence. A jury found…
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 Simple Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Dennis Peterson and Norma Peterson, his wife, defendants, appeal a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in an action for gross negligence brought against them by Ruby Wheelus and Crowell Wheelus, her husband, plaintiffs.
The sole question presented on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding the defendants grossly negligent. Where the line separating simple and gross negligence is indistinct, the proper course is to leave the question to be decided by the jury. Foy v. Fleming, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 177. A careful consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs of counsel reveals conflicts in the testimony. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict finding defendants grossly negligent.
Affirmed.
ANDREWS, Acting C. J., CROSS, J., and BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. R. D. Foster v. Honorable W. Troy Hall, Jr., 230 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…discharged and suggestion dismissed. LILES, A. C. J., concurs. PIERCE, J., dissents. . State ex rel. Raines v. Grayson (Fla.1951), 55 So. 2d 554; McKown v. State (Fla.1951), 54 So. 2d 54; and State ex rel. Johnson v. MacMillan (Fla.App.2d 1967), 194 So. 2d 627. . (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. . See cases in n. 1, supra.…
-
State v. Schell, 222 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…r from prosecution in order to secure the conviction of another, and this statute should be liberally construed to accomplish that purpose. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Newell, Fla.1958, 102 So. 2d 613; State ex rel. Johnson v. MacMillan, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 627; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 841. We know of no Florida court that has passed upon the question certified to this court. However, several other jurisdictions have answered the question and no jurisdiction with an immunity statute simil…
-
State v. Talmadge A. Buchanan and David Shifrin, 207 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…Dolan] v. Kelly, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 887; State [ex rel. Barone] v. Petteway, 1935, 121 Fla. 822, 164 So. 872; State [ex rel. Reynolds] v. Newell, Fla.1958, 102 So. 2d 613; State [ex rel. Johnson] v. MacMillan, District Court of Appeal of Florida, [194 So. 2d 627] Second District, January Term, 1967, Case No. 7462.” “The defendant [Buchanan] cites as authority for his position the recent case of Garrity v. New Jersey, United States Supreme Court, January 16, 1967, 35 L.W. 4135 [385 U.S. 493, 511, 87 S.Ct. 6…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- FOY v. Fleming, 168 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)