Sudden Emergency Doctrine

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

• Kreiger v. Mose Crowley
  182 So. 2d 20· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-11-02 ·cited 5×
  In this negligence case arising from a fatal automobile accident, the court affirmed the jury verdict finding the defendant negligent but reversed due to an erroneous jury instruction on sudden emergency that inappropriately shifted focus to the plaintiff's conduct when the evide
• Jackson v. Harrell
  171 So. 2d 633· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-02-04 ·cited 5×
  Plaintiff Florence Jackson appeals a directed verdict in her negligence action against defendants Adrian and Betty Harrell arising from an automobile collision. The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of defendant negligence
• CAR & Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Keal Driveway Co.
  132 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-20 ·cited 5×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding prejudicial error in not charging the jury on the sudden emergency rule.
• Valenty v. Saraiva
  292 So. 3d 50· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's order granting a new trial. The trial court had found the jury's verdict for the defendant to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, believing the defendant's fault was undisputed. The appellate court found this reasoning unsu
• Griffis v. Wheeler
  18 So. 3d 2· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-07-31 ·cited 4×
  In a wrongful death action arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that evidence supported a jury question on whether the driver negligently failed to swerve to avoid
• Vantran Indus., Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  955 So. 2d 1118· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the sudden emergency doctrine, as the doctrine's applicability and the driver's reaction present questions of fact for the jury.
• Djuana Garvey v. Barnes
  742 So. 2d 420· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-09-10 ·cited 4×
  Djuana Garvey Sparks appealed a judgment in a personal injury action arising from a three-vehicle automobile accident, arguing that the jury's apportionment of fault was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court
• Krementz v. Raby
  959 F.2d 695· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to preserve objections to jury instructions on joint venture and sudden emergency, and no plain error occurred.
• Johnson v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  797 F.2d 1440· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The jury verdict is supported by the evidence, jury instructions were appropriate, expert testimony was properly admitted, and damage awards were not excessive.
• Will M. Chandler and Mary L. Hays Chandler v. Edgar W. Long, Inc.
  623 F.2d 1139· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in giving a sudden emergency instruction, in refusing to grant a directed verdict, or in instructing the jury on causation using the 'substantial factor' standard, and affirmed the judgment.
• Alfia P. Cavallaro v. Williams
  530 F.2d 473· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on the defense of brake failure and the emergency doctrine were erroneous, requiring a new trial.
• Fetsko v. The Greyhound Corp. & Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  461 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The jury could not reasonably have found that the bus driver's negligence proximately caused the accident.
• Marvin Leroy "Roy" Long v. Hank
  457 F.2d 40· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by giving jury instructions on sudden emergency, unavoidable accident, and contributory negligence.
• Anna B. Swann et vir. v. Huttig Sash & Door Co.
  436 F.2d 60· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-17 ·cited 4×
• Leighton N. Gates v. Goldie V. Willford
  406 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1969-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury and in denying the plaintiff's motions for a directed verdict and a new trial.
• The N. River Ins. Co. v. Davis
  392 F.2d 571· 4th Cir.· 1968-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an action for contribution among tortfeasors is an 'action on a tort claim' for the purposes of federal venue statutes.
• Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc. v. McCAHON
  168 So. 2d 707· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-11-10 ·cited 4×
  In this personal injury action arising from a two-vehicle collision, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict of liability, holding that the evidence presented conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred and thus required jury resolution. The case es
• Copeland v. The Greyhound Corp.
  337 F.2d 822· 5th Cir.· 1964-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the bus driver faced a sudden emergency was clearly erroneous, as the circumstances did not constitute an emergency for the following vehicle which had ample time to stop.
• Campbell v. Mrs. Joan A. Barsky
  265 F.2d 463· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact, including the allocation of fault, were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the evidence.
• Moore v. Cap. Transit Co.
  226 F.2d 57· D.C. Cir.· 1955-09-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the streetcar operator's sudden, unforeseeable illness, which caused him to lose control and run a red light, was not negligence, and therefore the company was not liable.
• United States v. Jasper
  222 F.2d 632· 4th Cir.· 1955-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the officer's act of firing his pistol at the pavement under duress from a hostile mob was not negligent.
• Luper Transp. Co. v. Barnes
  170 F.2d 880· 5th Cir.· 1948-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction on sudden emergency was erroneous because it suggested an emergency excused the duty to exercise due care, and that the defendant was entitled to an instruction on unavoidable accident.
• Vantran Indus. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  890 So. 2d 421· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-12-29 ·cited 3×
  Vantran Industries and the Salinas appellants appealed a negligence judgment against them following a truck accident caused when a suicide victim deliberately jumped in front of a Ryder truck driven by Rowell, causing Rowell's vehicle to strike appellants' truck. The court revers
• Dearene Blake v. Singer
  914 So. 2d 994· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's explanation for the rear-end collision was insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence, entitling the plaintiff to a directed verdict on liability.
• Torres v. Sell
  502 So. 2d 521· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-17 ·cited 2×
  Hector Torres appealed a directed verdict entered in favor of Steven Sell and Universal Auto Salvage after a car accident. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in directing a verdict because whether a sudden emergency existed and
• 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.
• Wright v. City OF ST. Petersburg
  291 So. 2d 639· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence of a prima facie breach of the city's high degree of care, requiring jury determination of negligence and damages.
• Garlin Craig Signaigo v. Elwood Hennings
  249 So. 2d 60· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-05-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting questions of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury, nor in its jury instructions regarding speed limits, sudden emergency, or the unpredictable behavior of children. The mention of insurance was permissibl
• Kennedy v. Del. Leasing & Rental Corp.
  441 F.2d 562· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence were questions of fact for the jury, and the improper admission of testimony regarding illegal parking was harmless error.
• Schiffman v. Powell Sys., Inc.
  246 So. 2d 171· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give a sudden emergency jury instruction or in giving a contributory negligence instruction.
• David Hartley Thornton et ux. v. Longarzo
  182 So. 2d 303· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-01-07 ·cited 2×
  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.
• Skeens v. Gemmell
  353 F.2d 38· 6th Cir.· 1965-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or jury instructions.
• Currie v. United States
  312 F.2d 1· 4th Cir.· 1963-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the United States, as owner of the vehicle, could be held liable for injuries arising from brake failure, even if the driver was not negligent, due to the vehicle's history of brake problems and the failure to prove the defect was undiscoverable.
• Aerodex, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co.
  265 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant negligently installed a faulty part, and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law.
• Washington v. Emerson Good
  260 F.2d 268· 10th Cir.· 1958-10-15 ·cited 2×
  A driver is not negligent as a matter of law for failing to stop within the range of vision when confronted with an unlighted, stopped vehicle on the highway, especially when facing a sudden emergency.
• The Greyhound Corp. v. Mrs. Frances J. Ault
  238 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that permitting prejudicial arguments and submitting special damages without sufficient evidence constituted reversible error.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York & Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  234 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge, which imposed different standards of care and burdens of proof on the two defendants, was not even-handed justice and likely resulted in an unfair contest between the defendants.
• Burdette v. Phillips
  76 So. 2d 805· Fla.· 1954-06-29 ·cited 2×
• C. J. Peck OIL Co. v. Diamond
  204 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1953-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in allowing the minor plaintiff to sue by her next friend, and that the provision protecting the insurance carrier's credit rights was not prejudicial to the defendants.
• Maragakis v. United States (two cases)
  172 F.2d 393· 10th Cir.· 1949-01-27 ·cited 2×
• JOY v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
  999 F.2d 549· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
• Turner v. City OF Tallahassee
  566 So. 2d 871· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-09-07 ·cited 1×
  Ethel Mae Turner was injured when she stepped into a hole created by an uncovered water meter while taking evasive action to avoid an oncoming automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Tallahassee, but the appellate court reversed, finding that a jury qu
• Gullinese v. Fountain
  209 So. 2d 694· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-04-24 ·cited 1×
  A two-year-old child injured by a truck brought suit against the truck owner and driver. The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the Sudden Emergency Doctrine after evidence supported its
• Hendrix v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the USPS driver was negligent, as the accident was unavoidable due to the plaintiff running into the street after a child, and there was no credible evidence of speeding or distraction.
• Slane v. Jerry Scott Drilling Co., Inc.
  918 F.2d 123· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-02
  The court held that the trial court erred in giving a sudden emergency jury instruction that misstated Oklahoma law and improperly applied to all defendants, constituting reversible error. However, the court found no error in the assumption of risk instruction and that improper c
• Carter v. Unit RIG & Equip. Co.
  908 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-18
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, requiring a new trial. It also affirmed the trial court's method of calculating the setoff for a prior settlement.
• Baroco v. Araserv, Inc.
  621 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11
• Garr v. Union Carbide Corp.
  589 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-19
  A plaintiff with prior knowledge of a sidewalk defect is contributorily negligent as a matter of law if they proceed without looking and without a valid excuse for distraction.
• Brown v. E. DeVICCHIS & Sons, Inc.
  552 F.2d 545· 3d Cir.· 1977-03-14
  The court held that the trial court erred by preventing plaintiffs from presenting their theories of negligence as part of their case in chief, limiting them to rebuttal evidence.
• Greene v. Morelli Bros. v. Michael Tornetta
  463 F.2d 725· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-26
  The third-party defendant, Tornetta, is entitled to judgment because the record fails to show his negligence was a substantial factor in producing the collision.