W. E. BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
BERTHA ELIZABETH GRAY, 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.
The court held that the evidence presented did not establish gross negligence, supporting the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
The plaintiff-appellant, a non-paying passenger, sued the defendant-appellee for injuries sustained due to alleged gross negligence in operating her 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 Simple Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, in a damage action wherein the defendant-ap-pellee is charged with gross negligence in the operation of her automobile resulting in injury to her non-paying passenger.
The depositions of the plaintiff-appellant and of the defendant-appellee, were taken. Based on the pleadings, interrogatories and these depositions a motion for summary judgment was made by the defendant on the ground there was no genuine issue of any material fact.
The court granted the motion and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant and awarded defendant costs against the plaintiff. We affirm this judgment.
The issue of gross negligence was determinative of the rights of the parties.
The testimonies of both parties, as given in their depositions, as to the really material facts, are much in accord as to how the appellee was driving her automobile, except for the short instant in which the accident occurred.
The evidence thus before the court, not only fails to show gross negligence on the part of the appellee, as gross negligence has been defined by our Supreme Court, but actually refutes anything more than simple negligence. Therefore the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment for the defendant, and we affirm.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrod v. Elwin P. Schimmelfing, 264 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…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