SEITNER
v.
CLEVENGER ET UX.
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.
In this appeal from a negligence verdict arising from an automobile accident, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $5,000 award to the husband and $6,000 to the wife, holding that a defendant cannot invoke the sudden emergency defense when the defendant's own negligence created the emergency.
A defendant cannot escape liability by invoking a sudden emergency defense when the defendant's own negligent conduct brought the emergency into existence. The damage awards of $5,000 to the husband and $6,000 to the wife are reasonable and supported by evidence, and the court cannot disturb a jury verdict on damages when proper instructions were given.
“One cannot defend on a theory of sudden emergency when his own negligent action brings it into existence.”
States the core legal principle that a defendant cannot invoke the sudden emergency defense when the defendant's negligence created the emergency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred at the intersection of Clay and Adams Streets in Jacksonville. The defendant failed to stop at a red traffic signal be…
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
DREW, Justice.
This is-an appeal from a final judgment awarding $5,000 damages to the husband and $6,000 to the wife for injuries arising out of an automobile .accident; which occurred at the corner, of Clay and Adams Streets in the City of Jacksonville.
At the conclusion of the introduction of evidence the lower Court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The reason for directing the verdict was that the defense of a sudden emergency confronting the defendant failed because the evidence conclusively established that the sudden emergency was brought about and arose by virtue of the negligence of the defendant. The correctness of this ruling and the question of whether the damages are excessive are presented here for our consideration..
Our examination of the record convinces us that the' sudden emergency which confronted the defendant was brought about and arose because, and only because, of the negligence of the defendant in failing to bring his car to a stop in the face-of the red traffic signal before entering the intersection. One cannot defend on a theory of sudden emergency when his own negligent-action brings it into existence. See 5 Amjur. 601, citing cases fo-r the statement “where the situation of peril arises because of-the driver’s own negligence, the emergency rulé cannot he invoked in his behalf.” See also Independent Oil Refining Co. v. Lueders, 17 La.App. 154, 134 So. 418. To recognize the right of a defendant to escape liability under such circumstances w.ould be tq reward one for his own negligence.
As to the question'of' damages, this issue was submitted to the jury on proper instructions. There is evidence in the record to sustain the reasonableness of the amount awarded. We have no' authority to upset the amount of the verdict under such circumstances. Upton v. Hutchison, Fla., 1950, 46 So. 2d 20, and cases therein cited.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., THOMAS, J., and LOPEZ,- Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raphael Klepper v. Breslin, 83 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1955)…am of the view that the negligence of the driver of the car created the situation which resulted in the death of the child and that the doctrine of sudden emergency is wholly inapplicable. What was said in the case of Seitner v. Clevenger, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 396, 397, viz.: “To recognize the right of a defendant to escape liability under such circumstances' would be to reward one for his own negligence”, is clearly applicable here. The principal and basic reason, however, that I cannot agree with the opini…
-
Bellere v. Einar Madsen, 114 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1959)…ontention must be sustained. It is well settled that a defendant is not entitled to the benefit of a charge on “sudden emergency” when his own negligent action creates or contributes to the creation of the emergency. Seitner v. Clevenger, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 396, 397 citing Independent Oil Refining Co. v. Lueders, 1931, 17 La.App. 154, 134 So. 418; Loftin v. Anderson, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 470. It is equally well settled that the driver of an automobile — a “dangerous instrumentality” — is charged with the re…
-
Brooks B. Ellwood v. Etta Peters, 182 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…ned by Mr. Justice Roberts, expressed the view that the negligence of the driver of the car created the accident which resulted in the death of the child and that the doctrine of sudden emergency was wholly inapplicable, citing Seitner v. Clevenger, 68 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla.1953), which holds: “To recognize the right of a defendant to escape liability under such circumstances would be to reward one for his own negligence.” The facts recited in the Klepper opinion indicate there was a triable issue as to the s…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Upton v. Hutchison, 46 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1950)