Lloyd v. McKenna, 65-183
| Decision Date | 09 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-183,65-183 |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 583 |
| Parties | Mary D. LLOYD, Appellant, v. John J. McKENNA, Juan A. Solberg, and University Cabs, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Robert Orseck, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals a jury verdict in favor of one defendant.
It appears from the record that the appellant was a passenger in a University taxi cab which was proceeding east on N.W. 18th Terrace, Miami, Florida. The appellee, McKenna, was traveling north on N.W. 36th Avenue. These two streets intersect and a collission occurred, wherein the McKenna vehicle struck the cab in the right rear. Plaintiff instituted suit against both the cab company and McKenna, and the cause was submitted to the jury with an instruction that it find liability for the plaintiff against both defendants or either of them. The jury returned a verdict exonerating McKenna and holding the cab company liable. The only point preserved for review in this appeal was the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against McKenna, holding him liable as a matter of law, his testimony having been that he did not see the cab approaching from the left.
Of course, in determining the propriety of the ruling on the motion for directed verdict, McKenna is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence See: Massaline v. Rich, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 10; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749; Alterman Transport Lines, Inc . v. McCahon, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 707. The reasonable inference from the evidence is that the cab was on the wrong side of the street; that it was proceeding twice as fast as McKenna and that the cab driver clearly saw McKenna. The evidence is also susceptible to the view that McKenna was into the intersection first because of the respective speeds and because of certain testimony of the cab driver to the effect that if he had applied his brakes he would have struck McKenna broadside, which infers that rather than applying his brakes he attempted to beat him through the intersection.
We find no error in the trial judge submitting these issues to the jury under the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. See: Katz v. Bear, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 903; Budgen v. Brady, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 672; Housing Authority of Key West v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 728. To reverse, as urged by the appellant, would require a holding that a driver of a vehicle is negligent as a matter of law when he has his vehicle under control and traveling within the speed limit with the apparent right of way and enters an unmarked intersection because he fails to see a car which is on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth
...an examination of the record, we find no merit in this contention. See: Theriault v. Rogers, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 820; Lloyd v. McKenna, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 583; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Linder, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d The second point presents a somewhat more......
-
Stirling v. Sapp
...to act in such emergency to avoid the collision After the emergency arose.' Kerr v. Caraway, 78 So.2d 571 (Fla.1955). Lloyd v. McKenna, 179 So.2d 583 (Fla.App.3d 1965) involved a collision at an unmarked intersection between a taxicab, in which plaintiff was a passenger, and an automobile d......
-
Buck v. Lopez
...reasonably arising from the Court's own factual recitation of the accident and creates conflict with Vanzant v. Davies and Lloyd v. McKenna, supra. Vanzant v. Davies states the following rule: '(U)nder our court system, the jury in an action at law is the trier of the facts and in such capa......