Chaney v. Headley

Decision Date31 October 1956
Citation90 So.2d 297
PartiesJohn Quincy CHANEY, a minor, by his next friend, Q. O. Chaney, Appellant, v. Joseph G. HEADLEY and City of Miami, a municipal corporation, Appellees. Helen CHANEY and Q. O. Chaney, Appellants, v. Joseph G. HEADLEY and City of Miami, a municipal corporation, Appellees.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Hall, Hedrick & Dekle, Miami, for appellants.

Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey and Henry Burnett, Miami, for appellees.

THOMAS, Justice.

The two judgments brought here for review were entered in two actions, brought by a father for injuries to his son, and by the father and mother for injuries to the latter, as a result of a collision between the car driven by the mother, in which the son was a passenger, and a car operated by Joseph G. Headley, a police officer of the City of Miami. The officer and the city were originally parties defendant in both actions, but in the course of the pleadings the city was eliminated from both suits upon its motions that the plaintiffs' actions were barred by Sec. 95.24, Florida Statutes 1949, and F.S.A. In the action brought by husband and wife, the defendant Headley filed a counterclaim.

At the conclusion of all the testimony, the remaining defendant moved that the court direct a verdict in his favor in the main suits and upon his counterclaim. The judge granted the former, denied the latter, and granted appellants' motion for directed verdict on the counterclaim. So no recovery was obtained by the plaintiffs in the two suits or by the counterclaimant. No error has been assigned by the counterclaimant so we will not further refer to the ruling on this aspect of the litigation.

To grant the motion by the defendant that the plaintiffs recover nothing from him, it was necessary for the judge to conclude that it was apparent 'that no sufficient evidence [had] been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict * * * for the opposite party.' Sec. 54.17, Florida Statutes 1949, and F.S.A.

There is evidence that both drivers were stunned by the impact. The defendant-Headley claimed that he had no recollection of what occurred after he passed a street a block or so away as he approached the point of collision. The other driver regained consciousness after she reached the hospital. No other person witnessed the mishap.

It was established, however, that the plaintiff-driver was proceeding north on N. W. 6th Avenue and that the defendant was driving west on an intersecting street, N. W. 69th Street. The condition of the cars after the collision demonstrated that the plaintiff-driver's car was hit broadside and that the defendant's car had struck it head-on. The plaintiff-driver testified that she had stopped and looked before entering the intersection, and that she was travelling slowly when she was rendered unconscious by the shock. There was testimony from which it could have been inferred that the defendant was in much of a hurry and that, although he was the driver on the right, the plaintiff-driver had entered the intersection, and even the northeast quarter of the intersection, when her car was struck. Of course, there was evidence of the relative positions of the cars after the mishap and of skid marks upon the pavement.

These facts and circumstances do not indicate to us that there was such a paucity of information that it could be decided as a matter of law that there was insufficient testimony to support a legal verdict, or, to use the language quoted in Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla., 60 So.2d 174, that 'there [was] no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff.' Johnson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195, 196, cited in Bryan v. Loftin, Fla., 51 So.2d 724, 725.

It is true that no witnesses were available who were watching the cars as they ran together, but we cannot because of the absence of witnesses hold that no recovery could have been allowed. We have said that lack of witnesses does not conclude the question of negligence, Dehon v. Heidt, Fla., 38 So.2d 39, and we subscribe to the view that negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, Fla., 73 So.2d 403, 405; Felshin v. Sir, 149 Fla. 218, 5 So.2d 600.

True, there was a conflict in available evidence but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Woodard v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1965
    ...So. 772; Persons v. Summers, 274 Ala. 673, 151 So.2d 210. A plea of the statute of limitations raises a meritorious defense. Chaney v. Headley, Fla., 90 So.2d 297. On the other hand 'belief' in having a defense--not being a traversable fact--is of no validity. Ex parte North, 49 Ala. The re......
  • Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 24, 1957
    ...instructions.' Katz v. Bear, Fla. 1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904. See for example, Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headley, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miama, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174. See also Sec. 54.17, Florida Statut......
  • Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Fla., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 22, 1962
    ...appropriate instructions.' Katz v. Bear, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904.' See Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headly, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174. See also § 54.17, Fla.Stat., The appe......
  • Ritter v. Brengle
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 6, 1966
    ...There is ample authority in Florida that negligence may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of Florida in Chaney v. Headley, 1956, 90 So.2d 297, stated as follows: 'It is true that no witnesses were available who were watching the cars as they ran together, but we cannot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT