JOHN W. FOWLER, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF JOSE LUIS MACEDO TORRES, INCOMPETENT, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT SUPPLY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MICHAEL ST. LOUIS, APPELLEES
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.
Affirmed judgment for defendant in negligence action arising from motor vehicle collision, where evidence supported that plaintiff's vehicle ran a red light while defendant's vehicle had right of way with yellow light.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial because sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict that defendant was not at fault.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial in a negligence action when the jury verdict is supported by persuasive and sufficient evide…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA motor vehicle collision occurred at an intersection where plaintiff's decedent's vehicle ran a blinking red light while speeding and took no evasive…
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 Right Of Way cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in negligence action arising out of a motor vehicle intersectional collision. The plaintiffs sole point on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial because, it is urged, the jury verdict in favor of the defendant is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We disagree and affirm because there is both persuasive and sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that (a) the motor vehicle in which the plaintiff’s decedent was riding ran a blinking red traffic light at the subject intersection, (b) the defendant’s motor vehicle proceeded through the subject intersection with a blinking yellow traffic light and, thus, had the right of way, and (c) the aforesaid plaintiff decedent’s vehicle was speeding, and took no evasive action to avoid the accident, while the defendant’s vehicle was not speeding, slowed as it entered the intersection, and was in no way at fault in the ensuing accident. This being so, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for new trial below. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla.1951); Wilson v. Redding, 145 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Martin v. Stone, 51 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1951)
- Wilson v. Redding, 145 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)