Discovered Peril

30 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Mrs. Claire Drexler
  220 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-08 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict or a new trial, and that any errors in instructions or rulings were not prejudicial.
• Lones v. Detroit
  398 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1968-07-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the issues of the minor plaintiff's contributory negligence and the railroad's last clear chance to the jury, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Celanese Corp. of Am. v. John Clark Indus., Inc.
  214 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-30 ·cited 38×
  A contract provision attempting to exempt a seller from liability for its own negligence, particularly gross negligence discovered after the sale, is not enforceable, especially when the contract was formed before the provision was presented.
• Abernathy v. S. Pac. Co.
  426 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of discovered peril to the jury, but that the evidence was insufficient to support certain future damages awarded.
• Woodruff v. Hewitt P. Tomlin, Jr.
  616 F.2d 924· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority incorrectly departed from Tennessee law regarding attorney liability for in-court negligence.
• Martin v. City OF NEW Orleans & David Michell
  678 F.2d 1321· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 24×
  The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine when it was raised by the evidence and requested by the defendant.
• Union Tank & Supply Co. v. Kelley
  167 F.2d 811· 5th Cir.· 1948-05-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the owner of premises is generally not liable for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor, especially when the dangers are open and obvious and arise from the contractor's work.
• Theurer v. Holland Furnace Co.
  124 F.2d 494· 10th Cir.· 1941-12-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in setting aside the general verdict for the plaintiff based on a special interrogatory finding of plaintiff's negligence, as the findings were reconcilable and did not create an irreconcilable conflict.
• Porter v. Jacksonville Elec. Co.
  64 Fla. 409· Fla.· 1912-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a street car company in a negligence action brought by an automobile passenger injured in a collision. The Court held that a passenger cannot be charged with the negligence of the automobile operator when she had no control over t
• Beryl W. Minton v. S. Ry. Co.
  368 F.2d 719· 6th Cir.· 1966-10-11 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding.
• Lang v. Rogney
  201 F.2d 88· 8th Cir.· 1953-01-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to yield the right-of-way, requiring a new trial.
• Rutherford v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  278 F.2d 310· 5th Cir.· 1960-05-13 ·cited 10×
• Rutherford v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  276 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence presented genuine factual disputes regarding negligence, contributory negligence, and discovered peril, which should have been decided by a jury.
• Lapuyade v. Pac. Emp'rs Ins. Co.
  202 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1953-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly entered judgment non obstante veredicto for the defendant because the evidence showed no negligence by the truck driver and clear contributory negligence by the plaintiff's wife.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. King
  196 F.2d 999· 5th Cir.· 1952-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give the affirmative charge on both counts of the complaint, as the plaintiff's intestate was negligent as a matter of law and this negligence was the sole cause of the injury.
• Anne Russell Gilbert v. The ST. Louis-San Francisco R.R. Co.
  514 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a remittitur of punitive damages, when properly applied according to state law policies, does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
• Ford v. Sw. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  180 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1950-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant because there was substantial testimony of probative force in favor of the plaintiffs, raising jury issues on negligence and discovered peril.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Simons
  176 F.2d 654· 10th Cir.· 1949-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the railway company was liable for the deaths of both Simons and Grissom, affirming the jury verdicts based on negligence and discovered peril.
• Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Cadoree
  333 F.2d 682· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant or in giving and refusing jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• Farrell v. Weinard
  241 F.2d 562· 4th Cir.· 1957-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the doctrine of last clear chance did not apply because the evidence did not support an inference that the defendant saw or should have seen the plaintiff in a position of danger in time to avoid the accident.
• Gaylord Container Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Charley Miley
  230 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-23 ·cited 4×
• Monday v. Clynes
  212 F.2d 802· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury could find the truck driver's failure to avoid the collision was the proximate cause, notwithstanding the decedent's initial negligence.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Willingham
  177 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1949-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict based on the doctrine of discovered peril, and that the appellant waived any error regarding jury instructions by failing to object.
• Strickland Transp. Co. v. Gunter
  175 F.2d 747· 8th Cir.· 1949-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of discovered peril to the jury under Arkansas law, as there was insufficient evidence that the defendant driver actually discovered the plaintiff's peril in time to avoid the collision.
• Moreno-Espinosa v. J & J AG Prods., Inc.
  195 F. Supp. 542· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-29
  The court held that the plaintiff met the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for breach of contract and Florida Minimum Wage Act claims.
• Hart v. Mazda Motors OF Am., Inc.
  521 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-16
  The court held that the district court correctly refused to submit the issue of discovered peril to the jury because the record did not support a finding of actual discovery.
• Dutcher v. Ogle
  252 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-11
  The court held that the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the issue of discovered peril to the jury because the evidence did not establish actual discovery of the plaintiff's perilous position in time to avoid the collision.
• Levendosky v. Chicago
  223 F.2d 395· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-15
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish negligence or the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, and the icy highway condition was the proximate cau
• Thompson v. Boswell
  166 F.2d 106· 6th Cir.· 1948-02-06
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury, as there was substantial evidence of the railroad's negligence and the jury could find the driver's negligence was of lesser degree.
• Lawson v. Tennessee
  159 F.2d 65· 6th Cir.· 1947-01-13
  The court held that the intestate's contributory negligence barred recovery, and the statutory precautions were inapplicable to the switching operation.