Sudden Emergency Doctrine

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

• Whitt v. E. I. DuPONT de Nemours & Co. & Richard Ernest Osborne
  461 F.2d 1152· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-15
  The dissenting judge believes there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts on either theory of relief presented by the plaintiffs.
• Ferschke v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  459 F.2d 961· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-11
  The court held that the trial judge properly refused a sudden emergency instruction and that the given last clear chance instruction was consistent with Delaware law.
• Emmett E. McKAIG, Jr. v. Paramore
  401 F.2d 719· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-03
  The court held that the jury instructions given were proper and that the trial court did not err in refusing certain instructions requested by the defendants.
• Smith v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co.
  399 F.2d 370· 4th Cir.· 1968-08-07
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury with respect to certain South Carolina statutes concerning left turns at intersections.
• Allen v. Guagliardo
  204 So. 2d 349· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-11-15
  Mae Allen, a passenger in a car struck from behind at an intersection, appealed a jury verdict for the defendant driver, arguing the trial court should have granted her directed verdict motion on liability. The appellate court affirmed, finding the evidence presented conflicting
• Alford v. Blake
  385 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-15
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance and on a statute regarding truck brake adjustment.
• Adkins v. Pierson
  374 F.2d 860· 6th Cir.· 1967-03-22
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to fully instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, specifically omitting the requirement that the emergency must not be caused by the party's own negligence.
• Biscayne Kennel Club, Inc. v. Saulsby
  195 So. 2d 610· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-02-21
  Biscayne Kennel Club and its attendant Arthur Thibert appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Rosa Marie Saulsby for personal injuries sustained when a car rolled forward at the kennel club's valet area, pinning her between two vehicles. The court affirmed the judgment, findi
• Mulkey v. Zimmerman
  181 So. 2d 546· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-01-11
  Lillie Mae Mulkey appealed a summary judgment dismissing her negligence action arising from injuries sustained when she fell during a sudden stop of a Metropolitan Dade County bus. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the bus driver's sudden braking to
• Shank v. Alec Baker
  333 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1964-06-10
  The court held that the trial judge's finding of negligence in the driver's re-entry onto the highway was not clearly erroneous.
• Jamison v. DI Nardo, Inc.
  302 F.2d 27· 3d Cir.· 1962-03-14
  The court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to find negligence and proximate cause, and that issues of contributory negligence and trial conduct were properly for the jury or did not warrant reversal.
• Gaskins v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.
  299 F.2d 236· 4th Cir.· 1962-01-31
  The court held that the trial judge's findings of gross negligence and proximate cause were supported by the evidence, and the damages awarded were not excessive.
• Whittaker v. VAN Fossan
  297 F.2d 245· 4th Cir.· 1961-12-14
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting speculative expert testimony on speed and in refusing jury instructions on last clear chance and sudden emergency.
• Landry v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co.
  279 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-17
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury that the insured was negligent as a matter of law, nor in refusing to permit counsel to argue the law to the jury.
• Bailey v. Branin
  279 F.2d 344· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-07
  The court held that the trial judge committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury that the sudden emergency doctrine is inapplicable if the defendant's negligence contributed to the emergency, and by instructing that the defendant's negligence must be 'the' proximat
• Cameron v. Schaefer Lumber Co., Inc.
  254 F.2d 389· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-25
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the appellant guilty of gross negligence and the appellees guiltless of any negligence.
• Whitehill v. Gilbert Carriers, Inc.
  251 F.2d 226· 3d Cir.· 1958-01-07
  The court held that the trial court did not err in charging the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency, as it was inferable from the evidence presented.
• Floersch v. Merchs. Motor Freight, Inc.
  248 F.2d 704· 8th Cir.· 1957-10-15
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict against the plaintiff on the last clear chance doctrine, as the evidence did not establish that the defendant had sufficient time to avoid the collision after the peril arose.
• McDonald v. Foremost Dairies, Inc.
  192 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-20
  The court held that the circumstances presented a jury question regarding negligence and contributory negligence, making the directed verdict erroneous.
• Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Gusewelle
  190 F.2d 248· 8th Cir.· 1951-07-03
  The court held that the reasonableness of a driver's conduct in an emergency is a question of fact for the jury, and the jury's verdict, supported by sufficient evidence, must stand.