W. A. ROSE
v.
GEORGE S. PICKARD
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 plaintiff in a car accident case, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err in its instructions.
Yes, the jury's verdict and judgment for the plaintiff are supported by the evidence, and the trial court did not commit reversible errors in its jury instructions.
“The evidence shows that the plaintiff sustained injuries when his car was struck by the defendant's car at the time being on the south side of 44th Street.”
Establishes the basic facts of the collision and injury.
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 was driving south on Post Avenue and the defendant was driving west on 44th Street in Miami Beach when their cars collided at an interse…
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 Proximate Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal grows out of an automobile collision occurring on January 10, 1941, at the intersection of Post Avenue and 44th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. The plaintiff in the lower court was driving a Buick automobile south on Post Avenue, while the defendant was driving west on 44th Street. There *294was nothing reasonably calculated to obstruct the vision of the drivers of the cars when they approached the street intersection. The evidence shows that the plaintiff sustained injuries when his car was struck by the defendant’s car at the time being on the south side of 44th Street. The trial court denied a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant below and denied a motion for a new trial.
It is contended here that the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below are not sustained by the testimony and that errors resulted in enumerated instructions to the jury on the part of the trial court. These several contentions were ably presented by counsel in oral argument at the bar of this Court. The briefs have been carefully examined and the record studied and we' have concluded that, when the case is considered in its entirety, the record is free from error.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Stack, 33 Fla. Supp. 64 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…. The state argues that where the sufficiency of an information is challenged by motion and no appeal is taken from a judgment of conviction, habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an orderly appeal. Albritton v. Hoyt, 1943, 152 Fla. 332, 11 So. 2d 474. In the instant case, the petitioners, albeit late in the proceedings, attempted to attack the sufficiency of the information, but they were not given the opportunity to do so and there is no ruling of the trial court in this regard which can be con…