RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., ASSOCIATED INDEPENDENTS, INC., NEELY WASTE REMOVAL, INC., AND JOHN HENRY MUTCHERSON, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
VIRGINIA HOLLIS COOPER, AS THE NATURAL MOTHER OF WILLIAM HAROLD HOLLIS, DECEASED, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1963-12-27
No. 3916
KANNER, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., and PATTISHALL, W. A., Associate Judge, concur.
159 So. 2d 254 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a requested jury instruction, refusing to strike testimony, or in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants were sued for the wrongful death of a minor who was struck by a truck driven by one of the appellants. A jury returned a verdict for the pl…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The action below was brought against Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Associated Independents, Inc., Neely Waste Removal, Inc., and John Henry Mutcherson, appellants, by the natural mother of William Harold Hollis, a minor of about seven and one-half years of age, for his wrongful death as a result of impact of a truck being driven by the last named appellant as decedent was crossing an intersection. The jury returned a verdict of $25,000; the appeal is from the judgment consequent upon that verdict.

Four points promulgated on the appeal assert that the court erred in refusing to give a certain requested jury instruction and in' refusing to strike testimony concerning the condition of the driver’s seat in appellants’ truck; further, it is urged that the verdict is excessive and that the court’s failure to- direct a verdict for appellants was erroneous because the evidence demonstrated the deceased minor to have been guilty, as a matter of law, of contributory negligence.

We find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction nor in his refusal to strike the cited testimony; neither do we find that the verdict was excessive. Finally, the evidence submitted created a jury question, and the court properly submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury. Having carefully considered the record, we discern no reason for upsetting the verdict and judgment entered thereon.

Affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., and PATTISHALL, W. A., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw