MARGO A. MOSCA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MIDDLETON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant contends that where evidence at a trial discloses that plaintiff and defendant entered a traffic-intersection against a red light (plaintiff making a left turn and the defendant coming in the opposite direction at a considerable rate of speed), the jury must find the plaintiff negligent to some degree and, therefore, must apportion damages under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
We do not agree. A jury may find that the defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Even if the plaintiff was negligent, his negligence may not have contributed to the proximate cause of the accident. Henry v. Britt, 220 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1969); Vertommen v. Williams, 287 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1974); Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1976); Compare Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973).
Therefore, the jury verdict and final judgment here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lively, 465 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ed its opinion for that of the jury. Plainly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of no comparative negligence in this case. See Cook v. Lewis K. Liggett Co., 127 Fla. 369, 374-75, 173 So. 159, 161 (1937); Mosca v. Middleton, 342 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977); see also Helman [*1282] v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1977). Finally, there was expert testimony adduced below that, because the accident did happen in the a…
-
Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc. v. Peeples, 475 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…cannot say that he did. While the evidence strongly suggests some lack of care on the part of the decedent, the jury could have concluded that any negligence on his part was not a proximate contributing cause of the accident. See Mosca v. Middleton, 342 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977). The fact that the jury may have awarded an excessive verdict to the personal representative does not require the conclusion that it erred in passing upon the issue of contributory negligence.2…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Gates, 330 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Henry v. Duncan E. Britt, 220 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Edward Vertommen & the Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Williams, 287 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)