BAYSHORE HOLDING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
C. E. TURNER, APPELLEE
BAYSHORE HOLDING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
C. E. TURNER, APPELLEE
208 So. 2d 662
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed on the authority of Knowles v. Gilbert et al., 208 So.2d 660 (opinion filed April 9, 1968); Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165, 167; City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 285.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TUZ v. Alvira M. Burmeister, 254 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…evidence is close, and honest men could differ as to the conclusion to be reached, the question of whether the driver’s negligence was ordinary or gross is one which should be submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions. Lockridge v. Dial, 208 So. 2d 662 (Fla.App. 4th, 1968); Martin v. Clum, 142 So. 2d 149 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1962); Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1959). We are of the opinion that the evidence adduced during the trial of this cause with regard to the speed in which the Tuz vehicl…
-
Bochiaro v. Bochiaro, 212 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…river who turned to speak to his guest and in so doing took his eyes momentarily from the roadway thereby being unable to stop in time to avoid striking the vehicle ahead was sufficient to allege gross negligence. In Lockridge v. Dial, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 662, this court held that a host driver who struck the rear of a vehicle which had stopped ahead in response to a traffic control signal, where the host driver failed to observe traffic conditions, was looking in a rearview mirror and failed to apply he…
-
Herrod v. Elwin P. Schimmelfing, 264 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…e “is a close one on which honest men could differ”, and is in fact merely “surplusage”. Cormier v. Williams, 1941, 148 Fla. 201, 4 So. 2d 525; Revell v. Carraway, supra; Martin v. Clum, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 149; Lockridge v. Dial, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 662; Koger v. Hollahan, 1940, 144 Fla. 787, 198 So. 685, 131 A.L.R. 886; Cobb v. Lawrence, 54 Cal.App.2d 630, 129 P. 2d 462; Bell v. Gray, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 446. The judgment of dismissal, in my opinion, should be— Affirmed.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1941)
- Anderson v. State, 141 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Brunk-Smith Chris Craft, Inc. v. Espenlaub, 208 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Knowles v. Gilbert, 208 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)