Gittleman v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 02 December 1941 |
| Citation | 148 Fla. 583,4 So.2d 859 |
| Parties | GITTLEMAN v. DIXON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
George J Baya, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Robert C Lane and Edward F. Boardman, both of Miami, for defendants in error.
The defendant-in-error recovered a verdict in the trial court for damages resulting from the collision of an automobile, in which she was riding as the guest, with a tree located at the side of the road distant about five feet from the pavement. The plaintiff-in-error, host and driver, claims error.
Actually the questions to be decided are whether the declaration alleged and the evidence established such negligence on the part of the driver of the automobile as to support a verdict under the so-called 'guest statute', Chapter 18033, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1937.
It was charged in the declaration that the driver of the car was grossly negligent because of four acts performed by her while the automobile was in motion, namely, taking both hands from the steering wheel for a 'protracted' period of time, as a result of which she lost control of its operation; placing her foot on the accelerator which caused the car to spurt with 'terrific' speed; turning her head and body toward the rear of the vehicle in order to adjust some packages which were on the rear floor and, negatively failing to apply the brakes or heed the warning of her passenger. As a result of this conduct on her part, it was alleged, the car attained a speed greatly in excess of the limit of twenty-five miles per hour fixed by city ordinance left the road out of control and crashed into a tree, resulting in serious and painful injuries to the defendant in error.
In support of this pleading it was developed by the witness, with slight discrepancy in the statements of those who testified for the respective parties, that the two ladies, host and guest, were returning from a shopping expedition. The former was quite corpulent, weighing two hundred and forty pounds, and according to her own testimony, there was little space between her body and the steering wheel. In reply to the question whether she had ample room she said She was driving at the approximate speed of twenty-five miles per hour when some bundles placed in the rear of the car became disarranged whereupon, with the car still in motion, she turned her whole body for the purpose of reaching into the back of the automobile to adjust them. In doing so she took one hand from the wheel and the other hand slipped, or was taken, from it; she turned her face away from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ake v. Birnbaum
... ... evidence shown by the record to establish gross negligence on ... authority of our opinion and judgment in Gittleman v ... Dixon et al., 148 Fla. 583, 4 So.2d 859; Cormier v ... Williams, 148 Fla. 201, 4 So.2d 525; Wharton v ... Day, 151 Fla. 722, 10 ... ...
-
Wharton v. Day
... ... Ake, 147 Fla. 508, 3 So.2d 120; ... McMillan v. Nelson, Fla. 5 So.2d 867; ... O'Reilly v. Sattler, 141 Fla. 770, 193 So. 817; ... Gittleman v. Dixon, [151 Fla. 774] 148 Fla. 583, 4 ... So.2d 859; Jackson v. Edwards, 144 Fla. 187, 197 So ... 833; Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588, 195 ... ...
-
Glaab v. Caudill
...danger, turned their attention from the road to engage in protracted conversation with a passenger.9 See, e.g., Gittleman v. Dixon (1941), 148 Fla. 583, 4 So.2d 859, in which the driver of an automobile deliberately, and for a protracted period of time, turned her body to adjust some packag......
-
Frank v. Lurie
...Carraway v. Revell, supra; Reynolds v. Aument, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 562. The plaintiffs rely primarily on Gittleman v. Dixon, 1941, 148 Fla. 583, 4 So.2d 859, where the driver of an automobile appealed a judgment rendered for her guest. In that case the defendant was actually driving on ......