Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., 61-40
| Decision Date | 15 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-40,61-40 |
| Citation | 136 So.2d 376 |
| Parties | Robert J. JESKEY, Appellant, v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gotthardt, Christie & Shepard and Melvin Schaffer, Miami, for appellant.
Dean, Adams, Fischer & Gautier and Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This action was brought by the driver of one taxi cab against the owner of another, for damages for personal injuries received when the two cabs were involved in a collision. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. Motion for new trial was denied, judgment entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have directed a verdict for him on liability; that there was no issue of contributory negligence; that it was error to admit into evidence a City Ordinance requiring a hand signal for stopping; that error resulted from admitting a picture of the car after repairs were made; and that a new trial should have been granted.
The cabs had picked up passengers at Miami International Airport and were proceeding downtown, one behind the other. The accident occurred on Northwest 7th Street, some 40 feet east of its intersection with LeJeune Road. The cabs travelled south on LeJeune and turned eastward, onto Northwest 7th Street. Their speed at that time was estimated at 12 to 15 miles per hour. A gasoline service station was located on the southeast corner of that intersection. According to plaintiff, though not seen by the defendant's driver, a car pulled out into 7th Street from the station and, instead of proceeding eastward with the flow of traffic, cut across 7th Street in front of plaintiff and went west. That, said plaintiff, caused him to stop suddenly. He did not extend his hand, but his brake lights signalled the stop. He did not look to the rear before stopping, so did not know the state of the traffic immediately behind. He testified, however, that he was stopped for 20 to 30 seconds before his cab was struck from the rear. Defendant's driver testified that he was proceeding a car length-and-a-half behind the plaintiff; that he saw the brake lights and attempted to stop, but could not stop or maneuver in time to avoid collision. It should be noted that what happened was an unexpected stop at a location or place in the block where such a stop was unlikely. The passengers were not injured.
The trial judge was eminently correct in denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on liability, and in denying the motion for new trial. Appellant cited and quoted from McNulty v. Cusack, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 785,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dornton v. Darby
...Funk, Fla.App., 165 So.2d 792, cert. dismissed 170 So.2d 588; Greyhound Corporation v. Ford, Fla.App., 157 So.2d 427; Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App., 136 So.2d 376; Cooper v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App., 106 So.2d 436; Sheddan v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App., 105 So.2d 388; McNulty v. Cusack, ......
-
Pollock v. Goldberg, 93-3751
...rise to a variety of permissible inferences and presented an issue of negligence for determination by a jury. Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Company, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 376; Greyhound Corp. v. Ford, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d Id. at 793-94. In the present case, the jury found appellee to be 3......
-
Shaw v. York
...1., requires defendant to go forward with the evidence, McNulty case; 2., is a rebuttable presumption, Jeskey case (Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Company, Fla.App., 136 So.2d 376); and 3., is a naked presumption which is dissipated upon the introduction of evidence reflecting due care, Rianhard case......
-
Chiles v. Beaudoin
...negligence. Keyser v. Brunette, 188 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Hott v. Funk, 165 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., 136 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). In order to avoid the quick stop exception to the presumption of rear-end negligence, the plaintiff points to the fol......