Connolly v. Steakley
| Decision Date | 10 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4143,4143 |
| Citation | 165 So.2d 784 |
| Parties | Catherine E. CONNOLLY and Martin J. Connolly, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Wiley C. STEAKLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Early of Early & Early, Sarasota, for appellants.
Clyde C. Goebel of Grimes, Grimes, Goebel & Parry, Bradenton, for appellee.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant-appellee in the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, Florida.
The principal question for our determination is whether or not the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs' contention that the case should have been submitted to the jury with an appropriate charge on the doctrine of last clear chance.
These are the essential facts:
The accident occurred between 6:30 and 7:00 o'clock A.M. on the morning of December 12, 1961. The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's west-bound automobile as she was crossing from the north to the south side of Third Street, a two-way street, at a point located between its intersections with Orange Avenue and Adelia Street.
The plaintiff was seventy-eight years old. She had undergone an apparently successful operation for the removal of a cataract from her right eye. She could not see as well from her left eye but could distinguish light and dark and see a shining light. Plaintiff was hard of hearing and had a hearing aid but was not wearing it. At the time of the accident it was more dark than light.
As had been her custom for many years, the plaintiff was walking from her home to St. Martha's Church on the morning in question. She walked south along Adelia to Third Street, turned right, and walked west on a sidewalk separated from the edge of Third Street by a grass plot which appears to be five to ten feet wide. Plaintiff turned left at the center of a driveway located approximately 85 feet west of the west side of Adelia Street and walked along the driveway entrance five or ten feet to the edge of Third Street. She looked both ways along Third Street and saw only blinking traffic lights at the intersection of Orange Avenue to the west and Osprey Avenue to the east. Seeing no cars or approaching headlights, she started across Third Street in the direction of the driveway leading into the church parking lot. Plaintiff looked only ahead and neither saw nor heard the defendant's automobile until she was struck. The record is silent as to the color of the plaintiff's clothing although the jury were apprised of this fact demonstratively. 1 The collision occurred at or near the center of Third Street which is approximately thirty feet wide.
The defendant, eighty-one years old, was traveling west on Third Street with his driving lights on. He is 'pretty sure' he was not exceeding the speed limit of twenty-five miles per hour. There were no parked cars or other objects obstructing his view of Third Street or the pavement located on the north side. Defendant was watching two cars approaching, one of which turned south on Orange Street. The other 'pulled up' and parked along the south edge of Third Street near its intersection with Orange Street. When the driver of that vehicle turned off his lights, defendant glanced to the right in front of his car and saw the plaintiff in the street five or seven feet from the edge. When the defendant first noticed the plaintiff he could see her without difficulty. She was walking 'at an angle' towards the church. He put on his brakes and turned to the left in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid hitting her. When his vehicle came to a stop, it was facing west, pointing partly south. The front of the vehicle was approximately three feet over an imaginary center line in the street. The left skid marks were 35 feet long and the right skid marks 24 feet long. They began on the right side of the street. The left skid marks ended on the left side of an imaginary center line.
The required elements for applicability of the doctrine of last clear chance are so well established that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connolly v. Steakley, 33710
...Petitioners, the Connollys, seek review by certiorari, on conflict theory, of the decision of the District Court of Appeal reported at 165 So.2d 784. As will be explained later, that conflict does exist. This case involves the applicability of the doctrine of last clear chance. In order to ......
-
Copeland v. Perdue
...Judgment for the defendant was reversed because of the trial court's failure to give the requested instruction. In Connolly v. Steakley, 165 So.2d 784 (Fla.App.2d 1964), the District Court held the last clear chance doctrine was inapplicable because there was no evidence that the defendant ......
-
District of Columbia v. Robinson
...that "he was oblivious to the presence of appellee's car until a moment before impact." Id. at 942. 6 See, e.g., Connolly v. Steakley, 165 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.App.1964) ("the plaintiff can invoke the doctrine only if the plaintiff's negligence terminated, or culminated in a situation of per......
-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. ROBINSON
...that "he was oblivious to [the presence of] appellee's car until a moment before impact." Id. at 942. 6. See, e.g., Connolly v. Steakley, 165 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla.App. 1964) ("the plaintiff can invoke the doctrine only if the plaintiff's negligence terminated, or culminated in a situation of......