Evidence Of Negligence

65 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Jackson
  235 So. 2d 298· Fla.· 1970-03-18 ·cited 3×
  Seaboard Air Line Railroad challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statutes § 357.08, which requires railroads to place lighted fusees or other warning devices when trains block public highways at night. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding that the term "ade
• Shaver v. Carpenter
  157 So. 3d 305· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-11-26 ·cited 2×
  In a negligence action arising from a motorcycle-car collision, the jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs (Carpenters) and found the defendant (Shaver) 95% at fault. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court committed two evidentiary error
• Safety Kleen Corp. v. Ridley
  666 So. 2d 913· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-06 ·cited 2×
  Safety Kleen Corporation appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to Harold Ridley for injuries from an automobile accident, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that violation of Florida's seat belt statute constitutes evidence of negligence. The appella
• Swartz v. Derrell O. Billington, D.O.
  528 So. 2d 1371· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court considered whether a hospital's internal rule requiring signed releases for patients leaving against medical advice, when violated, could be considered evidence of negligence contributing to a patient's death.
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City OF Miami Beach & John E. McCoy
  420 So. 2d 601· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-05-25 ·cited 2×
  GMAC appeals a judgment and directed verdict entered against it in a case where the plaintiff McCoy sued for damages after being wrongfully detained by police investigating a stolen vehicle report, claiming GMAC's failure to notify police of repossession within 24 hours violated
• Leberta Starns v. Benton Jones and Samuel L. Garst
  500 F.2d 1233· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury, nor in its instructions regarding the Safe Brake Statute and the Sudden Emergency Doctrine.
• McVICKER v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  307 F.2d 501· 6th Cir.· 1962-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to exercise reasonable care to discover his presence on the railroad tracks and the approaching train, despite extreme weather conditions.
• Yellow CAB Co. OF Tampa, Inc. v. Pfizer Pharms., Inc.
  643 So. 2d 78· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 1×
  The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on violations of traffic laws, as the evidence supported such instructions. However, the instruction on a common carrier's heightened duty of care was proper.
• del Campo-Aguila v. Martins
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-07
  The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of vicarious liability against the vehicle owner but denied summary judgment on the driver's direct negligence and the plaintiff's comparative negligence.
• Dunn v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.
  781 So. 2d 1153· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-03-21
• Shibley v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  533 F.2d 1057· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-15
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the speed of the train, the duty to maintain a lookout, the sounding of the whistle/bell, and the abnormally dangerous nature of the crossing, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider these
• Reliance Ins. Co. v. Pyrofax GAS Corp. & Jerry Ritter Appliances, Inc.
  389 F.2d 602· 6th Cir.· 1968-01-26
  The court considered a petition for apportionment of mineral rights and addressed objections to expert testimony and motions for directed verdict, ultimately finding it unnecessary to rule on the expert's qualifications.
• Horowitz v. Solomon
  283 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-23
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding traffic volume at an intersection was permissible evidence of negligence, and not a violation of the right-of-way statute.
• Wealthy Barnett v. City OF Detroit
  245 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-13
  The court held that a sudden jerk in starting a streetcar, even a newer model, is not sufficient evidence of negligence to take the case to the jury if Michigan law dictates otherwise.