ROBERT EDWARD WARD, A MINOR, BY VIRGINIA DURHAM, AS HIS NEXT FRIEND,
v.
MRS. CLARA. M. EVERETT, ALSO KNOWN AS MRS. THEO. B. EVERETT
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendant in a personal injury case, holding that the evidence of negligence was insufficient to go to the jury. The court found no basis to impute negligence to the defendant's driver, who was operating the vehicle carefully and observing traffic laws.
No, the evidence of negligence was not sufficient to go to the jury. The court found no theory under which the defendant could be held responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.
“The injury was shown but the test of whether damages should be awarded is not the fact of injury but the fact of whose negligence caused the injury.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining liability in a negligence case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a minor, was seriously injured when struck by an automobile. He sued the car's owner for damages. At the close of the evidence, the tri…
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 Nonsuit cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was struck by an automobile and seriously injured. He brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the testimony the court indicated that a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant would be granted whereupon plaintiff moved a non suit which was allowed and from which writ of error was taken.
The only question presented is whether or not the evidence of negligence was such that it should have gone to the jury to determine that point.
The injury was shown but the test of whether damages should be awarded is not the fact of injury but the fact of whose negligence caused the injury. To entitle plaintiff to recover, the injury must have been caused by the negligence of the operator of the defendant’s automobile. Applying this test to the case at bar, we'find no reason to impute negligence to the defendant. The driver of the car appears to have been driving carefully, was observing the rules of the road, and was taking all the precautions re'quired of him. From the evidence adduced, there was *175no theory under which she could be held responsible so the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Chapman, and Thomas, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Dillon, 305 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…close of the plaintiffs’ case and should have granted a motion for a new trial on liability. We cannot agree. Appellants argue that “the mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish negligence of anyone” [citing Ward v. Everett, 1941, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So. 2d 879; Stolmaker v. Bowerman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 659]. While we agree totally with that proposition of law, we think that from the weight of the direct and circumstantial evidence introduced at trial, the jury verdict finding negligenc…
-
Stolmaker v. Bowerman, 100 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…e plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to prove the negligent operation of the automobile driven by defendant-driver. It is well settled that the mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish the negligence óf anyone. Ward v. Everett, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So. 2d 879. This is true even though the plaintiffs are passengers and are not chargeable with the possible contributory negligence of the driver of the car in which they are riding. A careful reading of the record in this case reveals that there…
-
Wood v. Jones, 109 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…[*775] PER CURIAM. The mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to establish the negligence of anyone. See Ward v. Everett, 148 Fla. 173, 3 So. 2d 879; Stolmaker v. Bowerman, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 659. Affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence