MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ELSIE KARSES, A SINGLE WOMAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 jury's finding of negligence was supported by evidence and that no reversible error occurred.
Plaintiff was injured when the car she was riding in rear-ended a passenger bus. The bus had made a regular stop, and the plaintiff contended the stop…
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 Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant in error recovered a judgment *164against the Plaintiff in error for personal injuries. The latter contends that the judgment should be reversed because it is excessive, that improper charges were given by the trial court, and that the evidence fails to show negligence on 'the part of defendant.
The case grows out of these facts: Defendant in error was riding in an automobile that had been following a passenger bus of plaintiff in error for several blocks, the passenger bus made a regular stop to take on a passenger and the car in which defendant in error was riding ran into the rear of the bus, threw her forward causing serious cuts on her face and nose which injured some of the nerves to her extreme embarrassment, left a permanent scar on the face, fractured and dislocated her left ankle which had not recovered twelve months after to such extent that she could pursue her occupation as a nurse. She was twenty-three years old and was earning thirty-five dollars per week as a nurse.
The question of negligence on the part of plaintiff in error turns on the fact of whether or not its bus was without notice brought to a stop so sudden that the driver of the car in which defendant in error was riding could not have reasonably avoided the accident.
The jury answered this question in the affirmative and we find evidence to support their finding which was approved by the trial court. There is also evidence that would warrant a contrary verdict but we find no showing whatever that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the evidence and we are convinced that the question presented was a jury question. To reverse them would be substitution of our judgment for theirs which we are not authorized to do.
Other errors assigned have been examined but we find *165no reversible error, so the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haislet v. Crowley, 170 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…more than a statement of the law as set forth in the ordinance of the city heretofore quoted and in §§ 317.371(3) and 317.381(1), Fla.Stat, F.S.A., and that it is a correct statement of the case law as set forth in Miami Transit Co. v. Karses, 1941, 146 Fla. 163, 200 So. 372. We have examined the authorities cited by the plaintiff both to the trial court and this court.4 We conclude that the subject instruction, as given, is not supported by any authority, that it is not a proper statement of the law and th…
-
Maximus Pagan v. Holman, 195 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…Consequently,, such an operator may be held liable, if',, without notice, he stops or decreases speed’ so suddenly that the operator of the following vehicle is not reasonably able to avoid [*608] a collision. Miami Transit Company v. Karses, 1941, 146 Fla. 163, 200 So. 372. However, a sudden stop or decrease in speed without notice may or may not constitute negligence, depending upon the •circumstances: “This is so because a sudden or abrupt stop, which could be the result of negligent operation, could as…
-
Georgia-Florida Motor Expresss Co. v. Usher, 84 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1956)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Merchants’ Transportation Company v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401; Povia v. Melvin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 494; Miami Transit Co. v. Karses, 146 Fla. 163, 200 So. 372; also Miller v. Ungar, 149 Fla. 79, 5 So. 2d 598; Brandt v. Dodd, 150 Fla. 635, 8 So. 2d 471. DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and THORNAL, JJ., concur. THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., dissent. ROBERTS, J., not participating.'…