SAM E. NICHOLS, A SOLE TRADER DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF SAM NICHOLS & SON,
v.
SAUL ROTHKOPF
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 automobile collision case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial judge's grant of a new trial after a jury verdict for the defendant truck owner. The court found the evidence clearly showed the truck driver's negligence in making a left-hand turn without adequate warning, and that the plaintiff-passenger should not be barred from recovery by any negligence of the automobile driver.
The trial court properly granted a new trial because the jury's verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Where negligence of two parties is concurrent in producing injury to an innocent third party, each negligent person is jointly and severally liable, and the injured party may recover from either or both. The plaintiff-passenger's recovery should not be barred by any negligence of the automobile driver unless that negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury.
“From the evidence, it seems clear that the defendant was guilty of negligence. The apparent finding of the jury was to the effect that the defendant was not guilty of negligence, or that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, or that both were guilty of negligence. This seems to be quite contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”
The trial judge's reasoning for granting the new trial, establishing that the jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA passenger in an automobile was injured in a collision with a truck on a highway. The evidence showed both drivers may have been negligent, but parti…
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 Concurrent Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review order granting new trial pursuant to judgment for defendant in a suit by a passenger in an automobile against the owner of a truck because of alleged injuries to the plaintiff caused by a collision between the automobile in which he was' riding andi defendant’s truck on the highway.
There may be found in the record some evidence that both the driver of the automobile and the driver of the truck were guilty of some negligence but the learned Circuit Judge said in his order,
“From the evidence, it seems clear that the defendant was guilty of negligence. The apparent finding of the jury was to the effect that the defendant was not guilty of negligence, or that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, or that both were guilty of negligence. This seems to be quite contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. This plaintiff was a passenger in the automobile. There seems to be nothing about his conduct that should bar his recovery. Particularly is this so, upon such a clear showing of negligence on the part of the driver of the *751defendant’s car, in turning- a truck to the left on a public highway in front of approaching traffic, without any adequate warning, and apparently'within sight of approaching traffic, which could have been observed in due time, had the defendant’s driver looked ahead on the road before making the left-hand turn.”
We find that the record amply supports this1 finding.
Unless the negligence of the driver of the automobile was the sole proximate cause of the injury, the defendant, if guilty of any negligence contributing to the proximate-cause of the injury, would be liable. See Firestone v. Allison Hospital, 106 Fla. 302, 143 Sou. 251; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 Sou. 8; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 94 Fla. 571, 113 So. 716. In cases where the acts of two or more persons' are negligent, however separate and distinct in themselves, and such acts of negligence are concurrent in producing injury to a third person, the liability of the negligent persons is both joint and several and the injured innocent party may sue one or all. Each of the negligent persons becomes liable for his' neglect of duty. See Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, supra.
There was no abuse of discretion in granting the new trial. So the order is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…her or not the driver of the timber truck, appellant Crews, was guilty of any negligence proximately contributing to the accident and resulting damage to plaintiffs, irrespective of any negligence of Mrs. Wilcox in the premises. Nichols v. Rothkopf, 135 Fla. 749, 185 So. 725 (1939). See also, 3 Fla.Jur. (Automobiles and Other Vehicles), Sec. 89, page 557, and authorities there cited. Appellants insist by Point 5, supra, that the trial court erred in permitting plaintiffs to adduce testimony to the extent r…
-
Putnam Lumber Co. v. Berry, 146 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1941)…of omission or commission, which together concurrently contribute to the injury or injuries complained of. In this connection see 45 C. J. 895, Sec. 467; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allen, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8, L. R. A. 1915C 20; Nichols v. Rothkopf, 135 Fla. 749, 185 So. 725; Barnes v. Liebig, 146 Fla. 219, 1 So. (2nd) 247. It is sufficient if the declaration contains an allegation of the particular act or omission causing the injury, coupled with the allegation that it was negligently done or omitted. Wood…
-
Buster Walker v. U-Haul Co., Inc., 300 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…phrey, necessarily concurred in bringing about the collision resulting in the death of Mrs. Walker, and thus appel-lees were joint tortfeasors with Dalton [*291] Ray Humphrey. Davidow v. Seyfarth, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 865; Nichols v. Rothkopf, 1939, 135 Fla. 749, 185 So. 725; Feinstone v. Allison Hospital, Inc., 1932, 106 Fla. 302, 143 So. 251; Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Allen, 1914, 67 Fla. 257, 65 So. 8; Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Millens, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 38; Wm. G…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gertrude M. Watson, 94 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1927)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mallory Johnson Allen, 67 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1914)
- Feinstone v. Allison Hosp., Inc., 106 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1932)