MacNeill v. Neal
| Decision Date | 01 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--34,70--34 |
| Citation | 253 So.2d 263 |
| Parties | Ellsworth R. MacNEILL and Guardian-Union Group of Insurance Companies, a Canadian corporation, Appellants, v. James D. NEAL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Schuh, Schuh & Woodard, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
George N. Meros, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This is an automobile accident case. The appellant was the defendant in the Court below. The appellee was the plaintiff. At the close of all the evidence the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the appellee/plaintiff on the issue of liability. This appeal followed.
The evidence taken in the light most favorable for the appellant establishes that this accident occurred on April 27, 1968, at the intersection of 9th Street North and 38th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, Florida, at approximately 11:00 a.m. Thirty-Eighth Avenue North runs east and west and 9th Street North runs north and south. Ninth Street North is a four-lane highway with two traffic lanes going north and two traffic lanes going south. There was a traffic control light in working order suspended over the center of the intersection at the time of the accident.
On the day of the accident the appellee was proceeding in a westerly direction on 38th Avenue North approaching the intersection at approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour. The traffic control signal was green for his direction of traffic and red for north and south bound traffic on 9th Street North. As he was about to enter the intersection he looked to his left and observed a car stopped on 9th Street facing north in the lane nearest the eastern curb line waiting for the signal to change. The appellee saw no other vehicles entering the intersection from the south on 9th Street until he was in the intersection. After entering the intersection and immediately before impact he observed the appellant's vehicle entering the intersection going north on 9th Street in the lane nearest the centerline. The appellant's vehicle struck the appellee's vehicle on the left side. The collision occurred in the middle of the intersection. Two disinterested witnesses described the appellant's car as traveling fast. Based upon this evidence the Court directed a verdict on the issue of liability in favor of the appellee. The appellant appeals.
It is the contention of the appellant that the issue of whether or not the appellee is guilty of contributory negligence is a question for the jury and because of this the lower court erred in directing a verdict against him.
The appellant argues that the driver of an automobile entering an intersection on a favorable light has a duty to ascertain whether or not the intersection is free from impending traffic which would present a clear and present danger to safe passage through the intersection. The appellant contends the record directly or inferentially establishes that the appellee blindly entered the intersection without first ascertaining whether there was traffic in or so near the intersection so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Colina
...Even, 262 So.2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gordon's Tractor Service, Inc. v. Bilello, 336 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); MacNeill v. Neal, 253 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 259 So.2d 719 (Fla.1972). Although he realized the intersection presented a danger and that Masferrer might......
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
...to assume that others will obey the law and yield the right-of-way to him. Kerr v. Caraway, 78 So.2d 571 (Fla.1955); MacNeill v. Neal, 253 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Wagner v. Willis, 208 So.2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). However, it is equally true that a motorist who proceeds into an inter......
-
Colon v. United States, Case No. 10-14294-CIV-MOORE
...turning left, will obey the law and yield the right-of-way to him. Kerr v. Caraway, 78 So.2d 571, 572 (Fla. 1955); MacNeill v. Neal, 253 So.2d 263, 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1971); Wagner v. Willis. 208 So.2d 673 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1968). However, it is equally true that ......
-
Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. v. McGlamery, 75--1924
...appealed. We affirm. See: Cash v. Gates, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 838; Tranter v. Wible, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 595; MacNeill v. Neal, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 263; Walters v. McQueen, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 34. This affirmance is not to be construed as passing any judgment on the negligenc......