DAVID HARTLEY THORNTON ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
PATSY T. LONGARZO, APPELLEE; ETHEL MAGNAT, APPELLANT, V. PATSY T. LONGARZO, 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.
The court held that the jury was properly instructed on the issue of sudden emergency, and the evidence supported submitting factual questions to the jury.
Plaintiffs sued defendant following an automobile accident where the Thornton car, stopped at a red light, was hit from behind by the Longarzo car as …
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 Question Of Fact For Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, David Hartley Thornton, et ux, and Ethel Magnat, appeal judgment after verdict for the defendant, Patsy T. Longarzo, in consolidated cases arising out of the same automobile accident.
The Thornton car was stopped for a red light. When the light turned green, said car proceeded forward and began to turn left. Upon the appearance of a small girl on a bicycle entering the intersection, it stopped suddenly and was hit in the rear by the Longarzo car. There was disagreement as to how far the Thornton car had proceeded into the intersection before it stopped and as to whether it had stopped a second time. The issues thus raised were properly submitted to the jury. Hott v. Funk, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 792 and Gulle v. Boggs, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 26.
The second question raised is the propriety of the court giving an instruction to the jury on sudden emergency. The record reveals there was evidence sufficient to show the possible existence of a sudden *304emergency. The presence or absence of a sudden emergency is a question of fact for the jury. Dupree v. Pitts, Fla.App. 1964, 159 So.2d 904 and Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 87.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SMITH, SHERMAN N., Jr. and ANDREWS, CHARLES O., Jr., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yellow CAB Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Chauncey Betsey, 696 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…nated or that her trunk was open to signal an emergency. Further, Mr. Betsey testified that he heard the sudden squeal of brakes prior to impact. The presence or absence of a sudden emergency is a question of fact for the jury. Thornton v. Longarzo, 182 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). The slow moving traffic on the heavily congested bridge and the cab driver’s testimony concerning his reaction to the sudden braking of a semi-trailer and the sports car is sufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence a…
Authorities Cited
- Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
- Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, 176 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1965)
- Dupree v. Pitts, 159 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hott v. Funk, 165 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)