WARREN C. DAVIS AND FRANCIS EDWARDS DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHIRLEY S. GOODALL AND ROSS J. GOODALL, 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 negligence appeal, the Davis defendants challenged a trial judge's decision to grant a new trial in a rear-end collision case. The appellate court held that the jury's verdict should stand because sufficient evidence of a possible sudden stop raised a genuine factual dispute about the plaintiff's contributory negligence, making the issue properly submissible to the jury.
The court held that the defendants' explanation of the accident and evidence of a possible sudden stop justified submitting the contributory negligence question to the jury, and the jury's verdict should stand. The trial judge's original decision to instruct the jury on contributory negligence was proper, and the order granting a new trial was therefore reversed.
“Where conflicting testimony raises doubt as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the issue of contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that factual disputes about contributory negligence must go to the jury rather than being decided by the judge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Shirley Goodall was driving north on Howard Avenue in Tampa on a rainy night when she applied her brakes at an intersection controlled by a …
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 Presumption Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The Defendants in a negligence action appeal from an order of the trial judge granting a new trial.
The Plaintiff, Shirley S. Goodall was driving her 1956 Ford automobile north on Howard Avenue in Tampa at approximately 9 :30 p.m. on a rainy night. As she approached the intersection with Watrous Avenue, which was controlled by a traffic light, she applied her brakes and was thereafter struck in the rear by Defendants’ 1961 Volkswagen which was being driven by Mrs. Francis Davis and which skidded or slid on the wet road while attempting to stop.
The color of the traffic light at the time of the collision is as stated by the trial judge, “A disputed question of fact.” The Defendant was approximately five car lengths behind the Plaintiff’s car just prior to the collision and the Defendant maintains that there is evidence to justify a verdict that the Plaintiff suddenly stopped her car on a green light on a rainy night and that she was therefore, guilty of contributory negligence.
In the order granting the new trial, the trial judge held:
“ ‘That the Court erred in denying plaintiffs Motion for Directed Verdict on the issue of contributory negligence at the close of all of the evidence.
“ ‘That the Court erred in instructing the jury on the issue of contributory negligence.’
“The facts in the case showed that the plaintiff was either stopped or coming to a stop on either a green, yellow or red light. The defendant struck the plaintiff in the rear. Accepting every bit of de*624fendant’s testimony as true, the Court does not find there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the cause should have been submitted to the jury only on the issue of negligence of the defendant and not on the issue of any contributory negligence of the plaintiff. It is therefore.
“ORDERED that the motion for a new trial be, and the same is hereby granted. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669.”
Where conflicting testimony raises doubt as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the issue of contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury. State Road Department v. Butingaro, Fla.App., 141 So.2d 620; Lynn v. Pulford, Fla.App., 200 So.2d 201.
In the case of Bernstein v. Crossman, 172 So.2d 462 at page 463, the District Court of the Third District stated:
“It is apparent from the record that sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of negligence when the defendant raised the issue of a sudden stop. Thereafter, the issue was one of fact for determination, by the jury as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and in this case the jury so found.”
We hold that the Defendant’s explanation of the accident justified the submission of the question of contributory negligence to the jury, and the jury’s verdict on this question should stand. The original decision of the learned trial judge to instruct on contributory negligence was proper, and his order to grant a new trial is therefore reversed and the verdict of the jury is hereby affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and HOB-SON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Bernstein v. Crossman, 172 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Lynn v. Pulford, 200 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- State Rd. Dep't & John Eugene Polk v. Butingaro, 141 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)