KENNETH ROGER CHASE AND AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTIN J. GILMORE, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GLADYS IRENE GILMORE, DECEASED, ETC., APPELLEE
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 wrongful death action arising from a pedestrian struck by a motorcycle, the jury found the defendant 20% negligent and awarded damages totaling $305,000 to the decedent's family. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting challenges to jury instructions on motorcycle lighting requirements and the adequacy of the husband's damage award.
The appellate court held that no reversible error occurred. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the lighting requirements applicable to Chase's motorcycle, since he was operating at 35 m.p.h. or more, triggering the 300-foot visibility requirement regardless of the motor-driven cycle statute. The damage award to the husband was supported by and justified by the evidence presented.
[1] A jury's apportionment of negligence between a defendant and a decedent will be upheld if supported by the evidence.
[2] A jury's award of damages for a wrongful death claim will be affirmed if supported and justified by the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although in the latter statutory section it is provided that such a cycle shall have lighting equipment sufficient to reveal persons and vehicles at one hundred feet when operated at a speed of less than 25 m.p.h. and at two hundred feet when operated at a speed of 25 m.p.h. or more, that section also provides that such distance shall be not less than three hundred feet when the motor-driven cycle is operated at a speed of 35 m.p.h. or more.”
Establishes that the 300-foot lighting requirement applies even to motor-driven cycles when operated at 35 m.p.h. or more, supporting the jury instruction given.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGladys Irene Gilmore was struck and killed by a motorcycle owned and operated by Kenneth Roger Chase while crossing a street as a pedestrian. The jury…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This wrongful death action was instituted against Kenneth Roger Chase and his liability indemnity insurer by Martin J. Gilmore, as Administrator of the Estate of Gladys Irene Gilmore, deceased. The death of the deceased came about when, as a pedestrian crossing a street, she was struck by a motorcycle owned and being operated by Chase.
Trial of the action resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff by which the jury fixed damages for one minor child at $250,000.00 and for a second child in the amount of $50,000.00, and for the decedent’s husband, Martin J. Gilmore, at $5,000.00. In connection therewith, the jury found that of the combined negligence of the defendant (Chase) and the decedent, twenty per cent was attributable to Chase and eighty per cent to the decedent. Judgment was entered on the verdict for the reduced amounts indicated by those percentages. The defendants appealed, and Martin J. Gilmore filed a cross-assignment of error; appellants do not question the damages awarded. Appellants contend error was committed in three instances by ruling at trial by which the court, over objection, excluded certain evidence and admitted certain evidence. To discuss those matters here would serve no useful purpose. We have considered the record and briefs relating thereto and hold no reversible error thereby resulted.
Additionally, appellants contend the court erred by charging the jury on the law, as set out by statute, requiring that every motorcycle, other than a “motor-driven cycle”, have multiple beam road lighting equipment which shall reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least three hundred feet. Section 316.248, Florida Statutes (1975). The appellants contend the charge on that subject should have been the statutory requirement for “motor-driven cycles”; that their lighting equipment be such as to reveal persons and vehicles at a lesser distance. Section 316.249, Florida Statutes (1975).
Although in the latter statutory section it is provided that such a cycle shall have lighting equipment sufficient to reveal persons and vehicles at one hundred feet when operated at a speed of less than 25 m.p.h. and at two hundred feet when operated at a speed of 25 m.p.h. or more, that section also provides that such distance shall be not less than three hundred feet when the motor-driven cycle is operated at a speed-of 35 m.p.h. or more. In this instance, the defendant, Chase, was proceeding at the latter rate or more on his motorcycle. We find no error was made in the giving of the questioned jury charge.
Appellee, Martin J. Gilmore, seeks reversal of the judgment as to him and a new trial on damages, contending the sum of $5,000.00 fixed by the jury as damages for him was inadequate in view of the evidence. We cannot agree. There was presented to the jury evidence relating to Gilmore and his wife, the decedent, and otherwise bearing on his elements of damage, on the basis of which we are unable to conclude that the verdict awarded to Gilmore was not supported and justified by the evidence.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.