MILO BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF SUSAN BELL, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
A. A. HOLIDAY RENT-A-CAR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FRANCISCO JOSE FERNANDEZ, APPELLEES
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.
A thirteen-year-old girl sued after being struck by a rental car while jaywalking across a congested Miami Beach street. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that a motorist is not an insurer of a pedestrian's safety when the pedestrian suddenly enters traffic.
The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that a motorist is not an insurer of a pedestrian's safety when a pedestrian suddenly enters traffic, and that this case properly qualifies as a 'darting out' or 'sudden emergency' situation where an oncoming motorist exercising due care has no reason to suspect a pedestrian will enter the traffic lane.
[1] A directed verdict is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could not lead reasonable persons to reach differing conc…
[2] Motorists and pedestrians have reciprocal rights and duties on public highways.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motorist is not an insurer of the safety of a pedestrian who thrusts himself into the vehicle's pathway.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that motorists do not bear absolute liability for all pedestrian injuries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Bell, age thirteen, was struck by an automobile driven by Francisco Jose Fernandez, an employee of A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc., while crossin…
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 seeks review of a final judgment entered pursuant to an adverse directed verdict rendered by the trial court at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff Susan Bell was injured when she was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Fernandez, an employee for A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc. The accident occurred on 41st Street on Miami Beach shortly after school had let out for the afternoon.
The plaintiff, at the time of the accident thirteen years old, was hit as she crossed the street. On cross-examination, the young girl admitted that she was jaywalking.
Fernandez testified by deposition that he was concentrating on the traffic straight ahead, because the traffic on 41st Street is congested and vehicles must proceed in a generally stop-and-go manner. He said he never saw the plaintiff until after he heard a noise, “like something hitting the car,” and he immediately stopped the car and heard a girl screaming.
The plaintiff testified that she saw the Fernandez vehicle approaching from about a block and a half away in the far lane just before she stepped off the sidewalk. Another car in the lane closest to the sidewalk had stopped to permit the plaintiff and other schoolchildren, who were walking with the plaintiff, to cross.
The plaintiff started to cross, following another friend, David Golzbein, who testified that he had just run to the median strip of the street, that he saw the Fernandez car approaching and he then turned to see the plaintiff hit.
The only point at issue on this appeal is the trial court’s direction of a verdict in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff argues that the evidence presented justified submitting the cause to the jury. Defendants contend the court was correct in concluding that six reasonable men could not reach differing conclusions that the defendants were not negligent.
Plaintiff cites several cases, each involving a pedestrian-automobile accident, as support for her position. See, Mathis v. Lambert, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 601; Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 820; Nelson v. Ziegler, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 780; Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 869.
As might be expected, each case involves a varying factual milieu from the case at bar. Moreover, the principles of law enunciated in each case actually provides stronger support to the defendants under the facts of this case.
It is clear from these cases as well as several cited by the defendant1 that the rights of motorists and pedestrians on the public highways are reciprocal. A motorist is not an insurer of the safety of a pedestrian who thrusts himself into the vehicle’s pathway.
In our opinion, this case properly may be classified as a “darting out” or “sudden emergency” type case where an oncoming motorist in the exercise of due care has no reason to suspect that a pedestrian will project himself into the line of traffic.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authority cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. E. g., Baro v. Wilson, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 843; Applegate v. Holland, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 46; Green v. Kersey, Fla. App.1966, 189 So. 2d 236; Resnick v. National Car Rental Systems, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 266 So. 2d 74.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riley v. Willis, 585 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…trial for a directed verdict. A line of Florida decisions has established the principle that a “motorist is not an insurer of the safety of [*1026] a pedestrian who thrusts himself into the vehicle’s pathway.” Bell v. A.A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc., 304 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Such cases are known generically as “darting” pedestrian cases. In Bell, a directed verdict for a driver who hit a 13 year old was upheld on the basis that the child darted into traffic and the driver never saw her. The supr…
-
Bilams v. Metro. Transit Auth., 371 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…cases. Reversed and remanded. . The testimony is in conflict as to which of the three lanes the bus was occupying. . The appellee cites such cases as Fernandez v. Kaba, 360 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and Bell v. A.A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc., 304 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). These decisions, which involve situations in which a jaywalking pedestrian so suddenly appears in front of a driver that he has no reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision, are plainly inapposite. . But see Signaigo v. Hennin…
-
Verta Fernandez v. Ovidio Edmund Kaba, 360 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…onable negligence. See Swift v. Century Insurance Company of New York, 264 So. 2d 88 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); and Gates v. Fien, 219 So. 2d 477 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). See also Preger v. Gomory, 55 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1951); Bell v. A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc., 304 So. 2d 535 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); and Jackson v. Haney, 124 So. 2d 719 (Fla.2d DCA 1960). Affirmed. KEHOE, J., dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nelson v. Ziegler, 89 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1956)
- Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1952)
- Mathis v. Adolphus L. Lambert, 274 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Baro v. Wilson, 134 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Theriault v. Sellers B. Rogers and William Bruce Rogers, 166 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Green v. Kersey, 189 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Applegate v. Jefferson Wesley Holland, 177 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Resnick v. Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc., 266 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)