BESSIE B. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, 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 record contained sufficient evidence of a prima facie breach of the city's high degree of care, requiring jury determination of negligence and damages.
Plaintiff, a paying passenger on a city bus, was injured when the bus swerved to avoid a car that pulled out in front of it. The trial court directed …
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 Sudden Emergency Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff/appellant suffered a directed verdict in her action against appellee for injuries sustained when she was thrown to the floor of a city bus in which she was a paying passenger. The alleged injuries occurred when the bus was forced to swerve into the curb to avoid hitting a car which had suddenly pulled out in front of it. We reverse.
The record reveals sufficient evidence of a prima facie breach of the city’s high degree of care owed to its passengers for hire, and therefore the jury should have been permitted to decide the issues of negligence and damages. There was some evidence that the bus was traveling 45 m. p. h. in a 35 m. p. h. zone when the car pulled in front of it. If true, this was some evidence of negligence.1 The sudden emer gency theory, the apparent basis of the directed verdict, could not exonerate the City if the emergency resulted from the negligence of its driver. Additionally, the question of proximate causation is also a jury question.
In view whereof, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . Cf. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. deJesus (Fla.App.2d, 1972), 266 So. 2d 108; see also, Instruction. 4.11, Fla. Standard Jury Instructions, 31 F.S.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bagley v. Dade Cnty., 353 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…final judgment in favor of appellee. Our review of the record shows that there was conflicting testimony which, if resolved by the jury in favor of appellants, could have sustained their cause of action. See, e. g., Wright v. City of St. Petersburg, 291 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); City of Coral Gables v. Patty, 162 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); and Blackman v. Miami Transit Co., 125 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Therefore, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further pro…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Pedro Nieves deJESUS, 266 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)