Edwards v. Poe
Decision Date | 06 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 6979,6979 |
Citation | 203 So.2d 188 |
Parties | Howard E. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Alfred Gordon POE and Doris V. Poe, his wife, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Minerva and Leslie D. Franklin of Earle, Jones, Chambers & Franklin, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
John T. Allen, Jr., of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
The appellant, plaintiff below, instituted suit to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle by the defendant, Alfred Poe. The defendants, Alfred Poe and his wife, denied the allegation of negligence and affirmatively alleged that the accident and injuries were solely caused by negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The case was tried on the issues and resulted in a verdict for the defendants. Judgment for the defendants was entered, plaintiff's timely motion for new trial was denied and notice of appeal was filed. The defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, but this court denied their motion. See Edwards v. Poe, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 220. A suggestion for a Writ of Prohibition was filed by defendants in the Supreme Court of Florida and a Rule Nisi was issued. A hearing was held and the Rule discharged. See State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, Fla. 1967, 196 So.2d 745. We now proceed to a consideration of the cause on the merits.
Succinctly stated, appellant's sole point on this appeal is that the trial court gave the jury contradictory and repugnant instructions on the material issue of liability. This point is based on appellant's assignments of error numbers 3, 6 and 10, and accordingly, under the Florida Appellate Rules, all other assignments of error are deemed abandoned. Nasrallah v. Corely, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 476; F.A.R. 3.7(i), 32 F.S.A.
Our chief concern here is with appellant's assignment of error number three (3), which alleges that the court erred in giving, over plaintiff's objection, each of defendants' requested instructions Nos. 2, 6, 8 and 12. To be more precise, appellant has chosen to base his entire argument on defendants' requested instruction number 2, alleging that it contradicts and is repugnant to one of appellant's requested instructions.
The court, in its charge to the jury, stated defendants' instruction number 2 thusly:
'The mere fact that an accident occurs or the fact that the plaintiff has received personal injuries, taken alone without evidence, facts and circumstances, is not evidence of any kind of negligence, but before the plaintiff may recover in a case of this kind, he must show not only that the accident happened in which he was injured, but he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was proximately and solely caused by the negligence of the defendant.'
The alleged conflict or contradiction of charges to the jury occurred, when subsequent to giving the above charge, the court said:
'* * * If separate and distinct but concurrent negligent acts of the drivers of different automobiles have caused injury to a third person, said acts are regarded to be as the proximate cause and suit may be brought and recovery may be had against either or both drivers or owners.'
Appellant and appellees have each stated in their excellent briefs that the evidence in the case would have warranted a finding by the jury that both drivers of the automobiles were negligent to some extent. Thus, there is no reason to question the propriety of the trial court's above charge on concurrent negligence. De La Concha v. Pinero, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 25; Hernandez v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 141 Fla. 441, 193 So. 555 (1940); Nichols v. Rothkopf, 135 Fla. 749, 185 So. 725 (1939).
The two charges to the jury, which we have heretofore quoted, involve the same point of law, but represent contradictory and repugnant propositions which we feel could have reasonably misled or confused a jury. Florida Power & Light Company v. McCollum, Fla.1962, 140 So.2d 569.
In Escambia County Electric Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83, 89 (1911), the Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of North Bay Village v. Braelow
...considered as a whole, correctly stated the law. Metropolitan Dade County v. Brill, 414 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Edwards v. Poe, 203 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). An appellate court will not reverse a final judgment based upon incorrect or non-applicable instructions unless the error r......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Brill
...reasonably necessary in making an arrest. The series of instructions, considered as a whole, correctly stated the law. Edwards v. Poe, 203 So.2d 188 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). It was clear that this was an action against police officers for negligence while acting in the scope of their employment. ......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Havlick
...because one paragraph or phrase standing alone is defective, if the instruction, as a series, correctly states the law. Edwards v. Poe, 203 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967); however, such a general rule does not apply where two instructions are in conflict and one is clearly erroneous and prej......