Sudden Emergency Doctrine

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

• Loftin v. Wilson
  67 So. 2d 185· Fla.· 1953-03-10 ·cited 201×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a $300,000 jury verdict for personal injuries sustained by Wilson, a railroad trainman, in a crossing accident involving a work train and a truck. The court held that the verdict was excessive when broken down into its compensatory components an
• Budgen v. Brady
  103 So. 2d 672· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-06-03 ·cited 105×
  A 2.5-year-old child was struck by a vehicle in a residential dead-end street when the driver, having no other witnesses, drove off the street into a private driveway. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that sufficient evidence of negligence
• Raphael Klepper v. Breslin
  83 So. 2d 587· Fla.· 1955-10-19 ·cited 74×
  A father sued for damages from the death of his four-year-old son struck by a car driven by Alma Conway Breslin. The Florida Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict for the defendants, establishing that a father's wrongful death action under Florida law can be defeated by the mother'
• Bellere v. Einar Madsen
  114 So. 2d 619· Fla.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 62×
  A defendant is not entitled to a sudden emergency instruction if their own negligence created or contributed to the emergency.
• Loftin v. Anderson
  66 So. 2d 470· Fla.· 1953-03-17 ·cited 54×
  In this consolidated appeal, the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a railroad could invoke the sudden emergency doctrine to escape liability when a train made an emergency stop that injured a passenger, and whether a spouse could recover for loss of services and consortium.
• Frazee v. Gillespie
  98 Fla. 582· Fla.· 1929-10-09 ·cited 52×
  In this automobile collision case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for negligent driving that caused serious personal injuries. The court held that while the plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent in turning without
• Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler
  176 So. 2d 87· Fla.· 1965-05-19 ·cited 48×
  Midstate Hauling Company and its driver Robert O. Knight appealed a reversal of a jury verdict in favor of defendants in a wrongful death case. The Florida Supreme Court held that a jury instruction on sudden emergency and darting out was properly given because it conditioned app
• Thomas v. Hogan
  308 F.2d 355· 4th Cir.· 1962-09-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the hospital record was inadmissible to prove the accuracy of a blood test due to a fatal break in the chain of identification of the specimen.
• Becker v. Blum
  142 Fla. 60· Fla.· 1940-02-27 ·cited 44×
  This case involves an appeal by an elderly pedestrian, Jacob Becker, who was struck by a car driven by Louis Blum. Becker argued that the trial court erred in refusing jury instructions on the last clear chance doctrine and on the higher duty of care for motorists at intersection
• Halprin v. Mora
  231 F.2d 197· 3d Cir.· 1956-03-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury's findings of no negligence were reasonable given the evidence and that the plaintiff failed to preserve issues regarding jury confusion and inconsistent answers.
• Dupree v. Pitts
  159 So. 2d 904· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-01-14 ·cited 38×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's order granting a new trial, finding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that a sudden emergency jury instruction was inapplicable and prejudicial.
• Lynch v. Adel D. Tennyson
  443 So. 2d 1017· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-12-15 ·cited 36×
  In this rear-end collision case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment against Lynch on the liability issue as to Tennyson, finding that contributory negligence questions must generally be decided by a jury. The court affirmed summary judgment against Lyn
• Dyess v. W. W. Clyde & Co.
  132 F.2d 972· 10th Cir.· 1942-12-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or the denial of a new trial, and that the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Cleveland v. City OF Miami
  263 So. 2d 573· Fla.· 1972-05-26 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that had directed a verdict for the City of Miami in a civil negligence action arising from police shooting that killed an innocent bystander during a riot response. The Court held that Florida Statute Section
• Hormovitis v. Mut. Lumber Co.
  120 So. 2d 42· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-04-22 ·cited 31×
  A truck driver sued the operator of another truck that collided with his vehicle at a highway intersection. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the sudden emergency doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendant's instinctive ev
• Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson
  537 So. 2d 1100· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-01-31 ·cited 28×
  This case addresses whether a jury verdict should be overturned due to juror concealment of material facts during voir dire. The court held that a juror's nondisclosure of his prior insurance relationship with the defendant insurance company constituted reversible error, warranti
• Burr Atkinson, Jr. v. Roth
  297 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1961-10-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and special interrogatories, which were confusing and inadequate, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
• Century "21" Shows & Kenneth Wayne O'Guin v. Owens
  400 F.2d 603· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or in refusing to set aside the verdict as excessive, affirming the judgment.
• Bailey v. Slentz
  189 F.2d 406· 10th Cir.· 1951-05-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in granting a new trial on grounds of dissatisfaction with the verdict outside the permissible time limit.
• Kan. City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shephard
  184 F.2d 945· 10th Cir.· 1950-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was not so contrary to physical laws or established facts as to warrant overturning the trial court's finding of injury, nor was the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• 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.
• Haddigan v. Harkins
  441 F.2d 844· 3d Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on damages only. The court found that while the jury's findings on liability were supported by the evidence, two substantive defects in the damages phase required reversal: an erroneous jury instruction regardi
• Hopkins v. Metcalf
  435 F.2d 123· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on sudden emergency because the issue was tried by implied consent.
• Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Sides
  320 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that the damages awarded were not excessive, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Brinegar v. Green et ux.
  117 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1941-02-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants, as there were genuine issues of material fact for the jury regarding negligence.
• Fla. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Casad
  98 Fla. 720· Fla.· 1929-10-18 ·cited 24×
  A motor bus operated by Florida Motor Lines collided with a parked car and then struck the plaintiff's vehicle after swerving to avoid a Ford roadster that suddenly backed into its path. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the jury co
• Brewer v. Jeep Corp.
  724 F.2d 653· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on breach of warranty was harmless error, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit a film without its accompanying report.
• Green v. Loudermilk
  146 So. 2d 601· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-11-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendant driver, and thus the trial court properly granted a directed verdict.
• Malcolm v. Patrick
  147 So. 2d 188· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-08-08 ·cited 22×
  In this negligence action, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge's order for a new trial and reinstated a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The court held that a charge on the sudden loss of consciousness defense, including its requirement that the loss be unf
• Theriault v. Sellers B. Rogers and William Bruce Rogers
  166 So. 2d 820· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-06-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to grant a directed verdict for the defendant, as the facts presented a jury question regarding negligence and contributory negligence.
• Williams v. Frohock
  114 So. 2d 221· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-08-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a driver suffering a sudden, unexpected blackout without prior warning or premonition is not liable for gross negligence, even if it causes injury.
• Fruit Indus., Inc. v. Petty
  268 F.2d 391· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts finding the defendant negligent and the plaintiffs' decedent not contributorily negligent, and that the verdicts were not legally excessive.
• Hasselbrink v. Speelman
  246 F.2d 34· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, as the evidence presented supported such a charge. The issue was properly preserved for appeal despite not being explicitly pleaded.
• Lachman v. Pa. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  160 F.2d 496· 4th Cir.· 1947-03-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and in giving a misleading instruction on the doctrine of sudden emergency.
• Hott v. Funk
  165 So. 2d 792· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-06-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find the defendant was not negligent, despite the presumption arising from a rear-end collision, because the circumstances presented an issue of fact for the jury.
• Burgin v. Shelton Merritt, III
  311 So. 2d 688· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-01 ·cited 18×
  In this automobile negligence case arising from a multi-vehicle collision, the court reversed the judgment against truck owner Burgin and driver McCollister due to improper jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur, but affirmed the judgment in favor of van driver Kinne and his emplo
• Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Lumbert
  401 F.2d 699· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law and the last clear chance doctrine inapplicable.
• Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Therion Omer Wood
  277 F.2d 21· 6th Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of the insurance company's bad faith in refusing to settle to the jury.
• Feinsinger v. Bard
  195 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1952-02-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Wisconsin statute for substituted service on a non-resident administrator is constitutional and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence against the deceased driver, Wedell. Therefore, the insurer Century Indemnity Company is
• Milo Bell v. A. A. Holiday Rent-A-Car, Inc.
  304 So. 2d 535· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-12-10 ·cited 16×
  A thirteen-year-old girl sued after being struck by a rental car while jaywalking across a congested Miami Beach street. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that a motorist is not an insurer of a pedestrian's safety whe
• Sowizral v. Mrs. Adele M. Hughes
  333 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a general objection to jury instructions is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, and that the trial court's instructions on the burden of proof and sudden emergency were not a gross miscarriage of justice.
• Heerman v. Jessalynn Burke
  266 F.2d 935· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-29 ·cited 16×
  A party is entitled to a specific jury instruction on their theory of the case if supported by evidence and properly requested, and a general instruction is insufficient if it fails to present that theory.
• Claud W. Nesbit v. Everette
  243 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that alleged errors in jury instructions were either not preserved for appeal, not misleading, or harmless.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Holland
  79 So. 2d 691· Fla.· 1955-04-20 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a $5,000 wrongful death verdict against a railroad company where the decedent, a trespasser on railroad tracks, was struck by a train. The court held that the railroad owed no duty to avoid injury to a trespasser except to refrain from willful,
• Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Hully
  200 F.2d 257· 8th Cir.· 1952-11-25 ·cited 16×
  An indemnity clause in a contract, specifying injuries "arising out of or in any manner connected with the performance of this contract," covers injuries to a contractor's employee even if the employee temporarily left their work to avoid a hazard, as long as their presence and t
• Elvia C. Vanzant v. Davies
  215 So. 2d 504· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-11-14 ·cited 15×
  A jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action is affirmed when the trial record contains sufficient competent evidence from which reasonable jurors could have resolved factual conflicts and reached their findings.
• Hunter v. Ward
  812 So. 2d 601· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-04-08 ·cited 14×
  In this rear-end collision personal injury case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on liability, holding that the appellee driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from striking the vehicle ahead at a
• Cole v. Layrite Prods. Co.
  439 F.2d 958· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict, in giving the jury instruction, or in refusing to amend the pleadings, as sufficient evidence was presented to raise a fact issue for the jury.
• Taylor v. Bair
  414 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-29 ·cited 14×
  A directed verdict is improper when reasonable minds could differ on the issue of negligence, and the sudden emergency doctrine cannot apply if the defendant's own negligence may have contributed to the emergency.
• Harwell v. Blake
  180 So. 2d 173· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its decision to give a sudden emergency instruction and its refusal to admit a docket sheet.