MACASPHALT CORP.
v.
MURPHY
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.
Macasphalt Corporation appealed a negligence judgment, arguing the plaintiff's own negligence in driving too fast to stop within his range of vision in nighttime conditions barred recovery as a matter of law. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a directed verdict for the defendant should have been granted because the plaintiff's undisputed negligence proximately contributed to his own injury.
The court held that a directed verdict in favor of the defendant should have been entered as a matter of law because the plaintiff's undisputed negligence in failing to maintain a speed allowing him to stop within his range of vision proximately contributed to his own injury, barring recovery under Florida law.
“it is the duty of a person driving upon the highway to so operate his automobile upon the highway as to be able to stop or control his car within the range of his vision, whatever the time of the day he may be driving”
Establishes the fundamental legal duty that plaintiff violated
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMacasphalt owned a pickup truck parked on the left side of a highway under construction at night, displaying a red blinker light and illuminated headl…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Hernando County in a negligence action brought by the appellee, as plaintiff below, against the appellant, Macasphalt Corporation. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, motion for new trial was denied, and judgment was entered. The appeal is from the judgment.
The record shows that the accident happened in the nighttime. The defendant was the owner of a pickup truck which was being used at the time of the accident in the construction of an asphalt pavement on a highway in Hernando County that had not yet been opened to the public for general travel. This truck was parked on the north, or left hand, side of the road facing in an easterly direction. There was a red blinker light in operation on top of the truck and the front headlights of the truck were lighted, casting their beam directly down the highway.
The appellee Murphy was traveling on the highway in a westerly direction. He knew that the highway was under construction. He first saw the lights of the pickup truck when he came over the crest of a hill better than half a mile away from the parked vehicle. As he was approaching the truck he passed a car traveling eastward, the lights of which “sort of blinded” him. After passing this car he again saw the truck approximately 300 yards down the highway. Thereupon he applied his brakes, but was unable to avert a collision.
The question is whether, upon these facts, the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the defendant upon its motion at the close'of the plaintiff’s case, which motion was renewed after the submission of all the evidence by both parties.
It is settled in this jurisdiction that it is the duty of a person driving upon the highway to so operate his automobile upon the highway as to be able to stop or control his car within the range of his vision, whatever the time of the day he may be driving. Ferlita & Sons, Inc., v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins, Fla., 52 So. 2d 666. The undisputed evidence of the plaintiff shows that he violated this duty to himself and to others, and that as a result of this violation he proximately contributed to his own injury.
The law is plain that where the undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his own injury, then as a matter of law he cannot recover damages. Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins, supra; J. G. Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So. 45. The judgment appealed from should be reversed with directions that a judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur. TERRELL, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Townsend Sash Door & Lumber Co. v. Silas, 82 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1955)…reversed and, therefore, the verdict of the jury held for nought on the authority of G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc., v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins, Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 666, and Macasphalt Corp. v. Murphy, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 438. The cases are cited as authority for the general proposition that a motorist must drive his automobile at such speed as to be able to stop or control his vehicle within the range of his vision. It was held in each of these cases that the undispute…
-
Cass A. Lientz v. Holder, 95 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1957)…dent because of his alleged violation of the “range of vision” rule followed by this court in G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc., v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins, Fla., 52 So. 2d 666; and Macasphalt Corp. v. Murphy, Fla., 67 So. 2d 438. This rule, as stated in G. Ferlita & Sons v. Beck, supra, is that “it is the duty of one driving upon the highway to drive at such rate of speed as to be able [*506] to stop or control his car within the range of his vision, whether it be by night-…
-
Cent. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Rogers, 140 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…8; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Caldwell (La.App.), Ill So. 2d 842; Faircloth v. Hill (Fla.), 85 So. 2d 870; Mississippi Power and Light Company v. Bradley, 220 Miss. 304, 70 So. 2d 611; Macasphalt Corporation v. Murphy (Fla.), 67 So. 2d 438; Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Robbins (Fla.), 52 So. 2d 666; G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc. v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Union Bus Company v. Smith, 104 Fla. 569, 140 So. 631; Geigy Chemical Corporation v. Allen (CCA 5, 1955), 224 F. 2d 110; Gen…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J. G. Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1912)
- G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc. v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1940)
- Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Robbins, 52 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1951)