CITY OF HIALEAH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CURRY AUTO RENTALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GLEN WILSON, JOINTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANET ROBINSON AND JANET ROBINSON AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THEODORE ROBINSON, DECEASED, 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.
City of Hialeah, Curry Auto Rentals, and Glen Wilson appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from a rear-end automobile collision. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments regarding denial of post-trial motions, peremptory charges, jury instructions on medical expenses liability, and the last clear chance doctrine.
The trial court did not err in denying the post-trial motions as substantial, competent evidence supported the verdict. The six peremptory charges were properly allowed given the defendants' answer denying proper notice and ownership. The charge regarding the estate's liability for medical expenses was erroneous but constituted harmless error not requiring reversal. The last clear chance instruction was applicable under the facts, though it could have been coupled with an emergency charge.
“As to the first point, there being substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict, no error is shown in the trial court's denial of the post-trial motions.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing denial of post-trial motions—substantial competent evidence must support the verdict to avoid reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJanet Robinson's automobile was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by Glen Wilson, allegedly on an emergency call. The collision resulted in perso…
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, defendants in the trial court, seek review of an adverse final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action.
The accident involved occurred between an automobile driven by the appellee, Janet Robinson, which was struck in the rear by an automobile driven by the appellant, Glen Wilson, which allegedly was on an emergency call. The appellants rely upon four points upon which they urge the trial court committed error: (1) In denying their post-trial motions for a new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto, contending that there is no evidence to support the verdict. (2) In allowing the appellees six peremptory charges contrary to the provisions of § 54.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (3) In charging the jury that the estate of Theodore H. Robinson would be liable for Janet Robinson’s future medical expenses, if any, in view of the fact that a husband’s liability to pay for his wife’s medical bills ceases at the time of his demise. (4) In charging the jury upon the doctrine of last clear chance.
As to the first point, there being substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict, no error is shown in the trial court’s denial of the post-trial motions. See: Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Vallarelli, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 161; City of Alachua v. Swilley, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 88. As to the second point, in view of the answer filed on behalf of all three defendants which denied proper notice to the municipality and denied ownership of the vehicle of one of the defendants, no error is shown in the trial judge permitting six peremptory charges. In this connection, see: Bailey v. Deverick, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 775. At to the third point, the charge was erroneous in law and constituted an error, but under the circumstances it appears to be harmless error and, measured by the test of the statute under § 54.23, Fla. *525Stat., F.S.A., it is not such that would require reversal of the jury’s verdict. As to the fourth point, under the facts the charge on the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable although, possibly, it should have been coupled with an emergency charge. However, it does not appear from the record that the defendants requested an emergency charge.
Therefore, in accordance with the views expressed above, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Clementine Vallarelli and her husband, 101 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Smith v. Smith, 142 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Guar. Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Jowers, 118 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- City OF Alachua v. Swilley, 118 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)