EDWIN WOODIN SCANTLEBURY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE L. BLOCK, 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 an appeal from a jury verdict in a negligence action stemming from a rear-end automobile collision. The appellant argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a statute regarding stopping on a highway. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested jury instruction. The appellate court found that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were adequate.
“Our consideration of all of the instructions when taken as a whole leaves us with the view that no error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give the requested instruction.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the trial court's decision regarding the jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee sustained injuries when the appellant's car collided with the rear of the appellee's vehicle, causing it to leave the road and overturn. …
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 Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant in a negligence action arising from an automobile collision. The judgment appealed was entered pursuant to a jury verdict.
*448The appellee’s injuries resulted when appellant drove his car into the rear of ap-pellee’s car causing the latter vehicle to leave the road surface and turn over several times upon striking the surface. The principal ground urged by appellant for reversal was the trial court’s failure to give an instruction to the jury concerning the provisions of Section 317.442(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., relating to stopping or standing of vehicles on a highway outside of a municipality.
Our consideration of all of the instructions when taken as a whole leaves us with the view that no error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give the requested instruction.
We have considered the remaining point raised by appellant and find that it too is without substantial merit.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.