Brown v. Kendrick, H-228
| Decision Date | 17 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. H-228,H-228 |
| Citation | 192 So.2d 49 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Clinton W. BROWN, Sr., Appellant, v. Diane KENDRICK, a minor, by Grover Kendrick, her father and next friend, and Grover Kendrick, Individually, Appellees. |
Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellees.
The plaintiffs below, appellees here, were a father and his minor daughter. The daughter was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a guest in an automobile owned by the defendant, appellant, which was being driven by the 16 year old son of said appellant. The plaintiffs sued the appellant as owner of the automobile in which the plaintiff's daughter was riding, as well as the party owning and operating the other automobile involved in said accident, a man named Scott. The cause was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict against defendant-Brown, in favor of the daughter-plaintiff, Diane Kendrick, in the amount of $16,000.00 and in favor of the plaintiff-father, Grover Kendrick, in the amount of $1341.00, and found the defendant-Scott not guilty. Final judgment was entered pursuant to said verdict and the defendant-Brown appeals therefrom.
In the course of the pleadings, the defendant-Brown, in addition to his general denials, included in his answer the defense of contributory negligence because the plaintiff, Diane Kendrick, did not avail herself of the safety available by fastening her seat belt, with which the automobile was equipped. This latter defense was stricken by the court upon motion of the plaintiffs, and defendant Brown allowed to amend. In the amended answer, the same general denials were alleged and the defense of contributory negligence for failure of Diane Kendrick to fasten her seat belt. The language used in the amended answer was more at length than in the original answer, but in substance amounted to the same alleged defense, namely, failure to use the seat belt. A newspaper editorial on the question of the use of seat belts was attached to the answer in support of the contention of contributory negligence. A motion to again strike this defense was granted by the trial court. This is assigned as the principal error by the appellant. Other errors are assigned attacking the trial court's ruling denying directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial, but we think these assignments may be easily disposed of by us by stating that find no reversible error in any of the court's rulings pertaining to these latter assigned errors.
The problem of the seat belts is coming to be more in the public eye today and there has been some legislative action with regard thereto. There has been and still exists controversy over the safety feature of the seat belts. The Florida Legislature has touched upon the subject only to the extent of requiring approval of the type to be used, if used. F.S. 317.951(1), F.S.A. It may be that after further research by various safety committees, the law may be changed to require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kopischke v. First Continental Corp.
...104; Britton v. Doehring (1970), 286 Ala. 498, 242 So.2d 666; Brown v. Case (1974), 31 Conn.Supp. 207, 327 A.2d 267; Brown v. Kendrick (Fla.App.1966), 192 So.2d 49; Cierpisz v. Singleton (1967), 247 Md. 215, 230 A.2d 629; D.W. Boutwell Butane Company v. Smith (Miss.1971), 244 So.2d 11; Fiel......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis
...against, or legal impediments to its acceptance. This has been true in Florida in which the presently leading case is Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) 3 which, citing several such factors, declined to recognize the defense. Largely because of significant changes and devel......
-
Warren v. Colombo
...without saying that his failure to have his seat belt fastened did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident. Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1966); Kavanagh v. Butorac, Ind.App. [1397], 221 N.E.2d 824 (1966). Obviously, however, in some accidents, an after-the-fact ......
-
Britton v. Doehring
...fall on the person who has seat belts but fails to use them? (Note supplied) 'There is also the problem of conjecture mentioned in the Brown case, supra (Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla.App.1966)). Conjecture is a dangerous term often used to describe a pre-conceived notion. Certainly,......