BRAUNSTEIN ET AL.
v.
MCKENNEY
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 reversed a judgment for personal injury damages because the trial court improperly allowed the jury to consider injuries from a second automobile accident occurring nine months later, which lacked sufficient causal connection to the initial truck accident.
The trial court committed error by permitting the jury to consider damages from the second accident. As a matter of law, when two accidents occur nine months apart with insufficient evidence of proximate causation, the defendants should not be held liable for injuries from the second accident, and the trial court should have withdrawn this issue from the jury's consideration.
“The two accidents occurred about nine months apart, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the injury received in the first accident was the proximate cause of the second accident.”
Establishes the court's factual basis for finding lack of proximate causation between the accidents
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKenney was injured in an automobile accident on December 11, 1951, caused by a truck owned by the appellants. He filed suit for damages. At trial on…
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 Legal Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*853] TERRELL, Justice.
December 11, 1951, W. F. McKenney »vas injured in an automobile accident. He instituted this suit against appellants, owners of the truck which caused the accident, to recover damages for personal injuries. July 8, 1952, when the case came on for trial, the plaintiff amended his complaint by adding the following paragraph:
“That by reason of his injuries alleged, Plaintiff has lost complete physical control and on September 14th, 1952, was thereby caused to suffer further injuries and fractures by losing control and falling from his motor, scooter and Plaintiff will continue to be subjected to the risk of further bodily injuries by reason of the injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of Defendants’ driver.”
Trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000, a new trial was denied and defendants appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in allowing evidence as to the second accident and injuries alleged to have resulted therefrom, to go to the jury.
We think this question requires an affirmative answer. The second accident took place as plaintiff was riding on a motor scooter on a heavily travelled street. The two accidents occurred about nine months apart, and the evidence was insufficient to show that the injury received in the first accident was the proximate cause of the second accident. Under such circumstances, the trial court should have determined, as a matter of law,, that the defendants were not liable for the injuries sustained in the second accident and should have withdrawn from the jury a consideration of this question.
For the reasons so stated, the judgment is reversed and a new trial is awarded.
Reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Selma Gross v. Lyons, 721 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…rvening act of a third person.... [Tjortfeasors have not been held liable for subsequent injuries or reinjuries that were not caused by, or the result of, the first injury. Id. at 1003 (emphasis supplied)(footnotes omitted). Braunstein v. McKenney, 73 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1954), is cited in the annotation as one case supporting this principle. In that case, McKenney was injured in an automobile accident. Nine months later he lost control of his motorcycle, and in his suit against the automobile owner in the firs…1 / 2
-
Frieda Collins v. Murl S. Burns, 160 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…was to the contrary. Therefore, there being no evidence from which the jury could find an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, it would have been error for the trial judge to submit this issue to the jury. See: Braunstein v. McKenney, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 852. No error having been demonstrated by the appellant, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…