Sudden Emergency Doctrine

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

• Martin v. Makris
  101 So. 2d 172· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-03-06 ·cited 14×
  The Florida East Coast Railway Company appealed a $32,000 wrongful death verdict against it, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, arguing the verdict was excessive under comparative negligence, and claiming the trial court erred in refusing certain jury instructions. The appe
• State v. Manning
  288 So. 2d 289· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-01-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Department waived its right to appeal the denial of its initial motion for a directed verdict by proceeding with its case, and that the jury was entitled to find the Department liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
• Berguido v. Eastern Air Lines
  369 F.2d 874· 3d Cir.· 1966-11-23 ·cited 12×
• TYE v. Ruark
  179 So. 2d 612· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-10-22 ·cited 12×
  The appellant defendant was found not liable in a negligent automobile accident that injured a ten-year-old bicyclist after a hung jury in the first trial. The trial judge granted a new trial, concluding the verdict did not accord with the manifest weight of evidence and erring i
• Ling v. Edenfield
  211 F.2d 705· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not rise to the level of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct required by Florida statute for a guest passenger's claim.
• Shell Oil Co., Inc. v. Slade
  133 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1943-02-02 ·cited 12×
• Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Faryd A. Saleme
  963 So. 2d 969· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-12 ·cited 11×
  In this motor vehicle negligence case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict that had apportioned fault 85% to the rear driver (Saleme) and 15% to the front driver (Trooper Lozano) after a rear-end collision. The court held that Saleme failed to present suf
• Yellow CAB Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Chauncey Betsey
  696 So. 2d 769· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-11-20 ·cited 11×
  In a negligence action arising from a rear-end collision on a bridge, the court reversed a directed verdict against the taxi driver, holding that he presented sufficient evidence of a sudden emergency that rebutted the presumption of negligence, making negligence a jury question.
• Foster v. Cont'l CAN Corp.
  783 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury instructions regarding excuse for statutory violation and the duty of care were proper under Indiana law, and the denial of a new trial motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Scott v. Conroy
  577 F.2d 13· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury regarding stopping in a traffic lane, as there was insufficient evidence. The court reversed and remanded Mona Scott's case for a new trial.
• Hewrett F. Dixon and Gerri Dozier Dixon v. Joice M. Thompson and Wayne H. Thompson
  217 So. 2d 887· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-01-28 ·cited 10×
  In this negligence case, appellants Dixon sought review of a jury verdict favoring appellees Thompson in a motor vehicle collision. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury properly resolved whether Dixon's emergency maneuver to avoid a head-on collision constituted
• Fernandez v. Moreno
  176 So. 2d 587· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-06-30 ·cited 10×
  Defendant Fernandez appeals a summary judgment on liability entered against him in an automobile negligence case. The court reversed because the summary judgment was entered without proper notice to the defendant, depriving him of the opportunity to respond with opposing affidavi
• Nabelski v. Turner
  173 So. 2d 729· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-04-01 ·cited 10×
  A mother appealed from a trial court's order granting a new trial in a wrongful death case where her three-year-old child was struck by a car. The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of a new trial, reinstating the jury's verdict for the defendant driver, holding tha
• Fowler v. Midstate Hauling Co.
  162 So. 2d 278· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it was error to give jury instructions on sudden emergency and darting out when the driver's own actions created the perilous situation.
• Atl. Greyhound Corp. v. Eddins
  177 F.2d 954· 4th Cir.· 1949-11-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issues of primary negligence and contributory negligence to the jury, and that the exclusion of evidence regarding a witness's prior inconsistent opinion was proper under the circumstances.
• Cram v. Eveloff
  127 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1942-04-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury was warranted in finding the defendant negligent for suddenly stopping without warning and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
• Weynona R. Pemberton v. Keel
  195 So. 2d 632· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-02-08 ·cited 9×
  In this auto accident case, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial on two grounds: erroneous jury instruction on the Sudden Emergency Doctrine and that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court upheld the discret
• Souvorin v. Lerich
  180 So. 2d 180· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-11-16 ·cited 9×
  In this personal injury appeal, the defendant driver challenged the admission of an ordinance requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks at a T-intersection, and the trial court's jury instructions on the last clear chance doctrine. The appellate court aff
• Stark v. Smith
  310 So. 2d 334· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-03-25 ·cited 8×
  Defendants Thomas Stark and others appeal a $40,000 jury verdict entered against them in a personal injury case arising from a car running over a minor plaintiff in a bar parking lot. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly instructed the
• Dubois Fence & Garden Co. v. Stevens
  296 So. 2d 116· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-06 ·cited 8×
  In this negligence case arising from a fatal highway collision, the appellate court affirmed the trial judge's decision to grant a new trial despite a jury verdict for the defendants (the truck driver and his employer). The court held that the trial judge properly exercised his b
• Darr v. Aglin
  279 So. 2d 62· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-06-19 ·cited 8×
  In this negligence action arising from a rear-end collision on Interstate 10, the trial court granted post-trial directed verdicts for the plaintiff despite a jury verdict in favor of the defendant-truck driver. The appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence supported th
• Schubowsky v. Hearn Food Store, Inc.
  261 So. 2d 162· Fla.· 1972-04-06 ·cited 8×
• Int'l Sales-Rentals Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof
  251 So. 2d 349· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-06-29 ·cited 8×
  International Sales-Rentals Leasing Company appeals a jury verdict in an automobile negligence case arising from a multi-vehicle collision. The court affirms the judgment, rejecting challenges to expert testimony regarding vehicle speed and the applicability of the sudden emergen
• Scott v. Barfield
  202 So. 2d 591· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the doctrines of sudden emergency and unavoidable accident, and upholding the jury's verdict for the defendants.
• Angelina Cane Trezza and husband v. Dame
  370 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1967-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trial judge's comments on liability were strong, they did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence against the defendant and the jury's instruction that they could disagree.
• Gertler v. Peterson
  116 So. 2d 778· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-01-04 ·cited 8×
  Joseph Gertler appealed a summary judgment in a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident. The trial court ruled Gertler was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to avoid colliding with a car that suddenly changed lanes in front of him. The appel
• Seitner v. Clevenger et ux.
  68 So. 2d 396· Fla.· 1953-12-01 ·cited 8×
  In this appeal from a negligence verdict arising from an automobile accident, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $5,000 award to the husband and $6,000 to the wife, holding that a defendant cannot invoke the sudden emergency defense when the defendant's own negligence created t
• Salter v. Westra
  904 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 7×
  The trial court did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction on mechanical defect or failure, nor in its evidentiary rulings, but did err in submitting the wantonness claim to the jury.
• Smith v. Lassing
  189 So. 2d 244· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-07-07 ·cited 7×
  In this wrongful death action arising from a three-car collision, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a $25,000 judgment, holding that evidence of the deceased's investment income and capital assets was admissible in calculating damages for the economic value of her lif
• Brooks B. Ellwood v. Etta Peters
  182 So. 2d 281· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-01-27 ·cited 7×
  The trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine in a vehicular negligence case where substantial evidence showed the defendant driver's negligent conduct (excessive speed, failure to reduce speed despite impaired visibility) before the emerg
• Wallace v. Nat'l Fisheries, Inc.
  768 So. 2d 17· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-26 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment for the defendants is reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the driver's negligence and the applicability of the sudden emergency doctrine.
• Guerts v. Barth
  892 F.2d 622· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the plaintiff waived the right to appeal the sudden emergency jury instruction by failing to state specific grounds for objection at trial.
• Booth v. Abbey Rd. Beef & Booze, Inc.
  532 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the union lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of homeless persons and that claims asserted on behalf of Amtrak policemen were either premature, speculative, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
• Gautreaux v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & McDermott Inc.
  811 F.2d 908· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the jury's findings on negligence and contributory negligence were supported by evidence, the total damages award was excessive due to an unsupported calculation of future lost wages, requiring a new trial on damages.
• Wilton LEE v. Dunnigan
  384 So. 2d 165· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-05-02 ·cited 6×
  In this negligence case involving a multi-vehicle collision, the appellants sought contribution from the appellees based on comparative negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fac
• Scott v. City OF OPA Locka
  311 So. 2d 825· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-04-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, as the facts supported its application and the definition provided was legally correct.
• Echeverria v. Barczak
  308 So. 2d 633· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The trial court erred in refusing a sudden emergency instruction and improperly reduced the jury's damage award.
• Donald R. Young with Will annexed of the Estate of Russell Wesley Young v. Taylor
  212 So. 2d 25· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-06-12 ·cited 6×
  Appellants challenged a jury verdict in a wrongful death case arising from an automobile collision, claiming the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligence and sudden emergency. The appellate court affirmed, holding that appellants waived the contributor
• Maximus Pagan v. Holman
  195 So. 2d 606· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-02-28 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiff sued for negligence arising from a multi-vehicle collision allegedly caused by defendant's sudden decrease in speed without warning. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but the appellate court reversed, holding that allegation
• Nancy Holmes and her husband v. Surfus
  194 So. 2d 283· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-01-20 ·cited 6×
  Nancy Holmes was injured in a collision with a vehicle driven by Benjamin Arney and sued for damages. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial judge's jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial
• Chicago v. King
  337 F.2d 510· 8th Cir.· 1964-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issues of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury, nor in submitting the 'no eyewitness rule' instruction.
• Blackwell v. Regal CAB Co.
  316 F.2d 398· D.C. Cir.· 1963-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions regarding the doctrine of 'sudden emergency' constituted reversible error due to confusion and misstatement.
• Watts v. Roberts
  282 F.2d 565· 10th Cir.· 1960-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the defendant truck driver was not actionably negligent.
• Cotter M. Mathews v. Lindsay
  281 F.2d 927· D.C. Cir.· 1960-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance, including its inapplicability in cases of sudden emergency.
• Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Dairyland Transp. Corp.
  266 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for instructed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but reversed and remanded due to prejudicial errors in jury instructions.
• N. Am. van Lines, Inc. v. Brown
  248 F.2d 905· 8th Cir.· 1957-11-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's negligent parking of its truck on the highway, which contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, was a proximate cause of the accident, and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
• Hogan v. Williams
  193 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on dependency and contribution, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to give certain jury instructions or direct a verdict.
• Montgomery v. Whitfield
  188 F.2d 757· 4th Cir.· 1951-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding contributory negligence were proper, and the directed verdict for the truck owners was also correct.
• 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.
• Great N. Ry. Co. v. Taulbee
  92 F.2d 20· 9th Cir.· 1937-08-30 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion erred by disregarding conflicting evidence and substituting its own judgment for that of the jury. The dissent emphasizes that the ruling on the motion for a directed verdict was not properly excepted to and is therefore unrev