Menard v. O'Malley
| Decision Date | 10 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--165,75--165 |
| Citation | 327 So.2d 905 |
| Parties | Richard Lee MENARD and John W. Menard, Appellants, v. John Phillip O'MALLEY, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, Nance & Cacciatore, Melbourne, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Benick & Knight, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, was struck by defendant's truck when, as a pedestrian, he attempted to cross U.S. 1 in Monroe County. The cause was tried before a jury and the defendant received a verdict and judgment. The single question presented on appeal is whether the court erred in refusing to give one or more of defendant's requested instructions. We hold that reversible error has been demonstrated because of the court's refusal to instruct on a statute limiting the width of automobiles operated on the highways. This is so because the violation of the statute is evidence of negligence and the issue of the excessive width of defendant's truck was presented by the evidence.
It is true that an appellate court will not set aside a verdict, where it is conformable to the law and the facts, merely because the trial court refused to give instructions that might properly be given. Maistrosky v. Harvey, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 103. See also Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358, and Gavin v. Headley, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 843. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that a party is entitled to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case when the evidence viewed in a light favorable thereto substantially supports the theory, even though it may be subsequently controverted by evidence of the opposing party. See Williams v. Sauls, 1942, 151 Fla. 270, 9 So.2d 369; Luster v. Moore, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 87; Hattaway v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 101, and Sea Ledge Properties, Inc. v. Dodge, Fla.App.1973, 283 So.2d 55.
We have reviewed all the evidence and while space and time do not permit what might be a useful discussion of the evidence, we find that the following facts appear: (1) Plaintiff was standing near the center line of the highway 1; (2) he was struck by the side-view mirror of defendant's truck and was thrown into the extending bed of the truck; (3) Fla.Stat. § 316.196 provides, 'Maximum width, height, length 2 (2) The total outside width of any vehicle of the load thereon shall not exceed ninety-six inches . . .;' (4) the cab of the truck was 7 feet wide and the mirror on the truck extended out about 20 to 25 inches from the cab; and (5) plaintiff requested, in writing, an instruction on the statute. An instruction that violation of a statute is evidence of negligence was requested and denied. Under these circumstances revealed by the record, the refusal of plaintiff's requested instructions is reversible error. See De Jesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.1973, 281 So.2d 198, and Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Pollack, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 346.
Having determined that reversible error appears, it is not necessary to discuss plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratley v. Batchelor
...if it found the defendant violated section 316.196(1), such violation constituted evidence of negligence. See also Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So.2d 905 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Here, the undisputed facts show that Mr. Batchelor violated section 316.515(1), in that the load he was transporting was wi......
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
...Sotuyo v. Williams, 587 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); City of Tamarac v. Garchar, 398 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In Addison, this Court At issue here is respondent's alleged violation of a statute, section 316.1575(1)(c), part of th......
-
City of Tamarac v. Garchar
...substantially supports the theory even though it may be substantially controverted by evidence of the opposing party. Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The appellant was entitled to have the jury instructed in accordance with the law and the failure of the trial court to......
-
LaTorre By and Through LaTorre v. First Baptist Church of Ojus, Inc.
...1st DCA 1985); Gallagher v. Federal Insurance Co., 346 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 980 (Fla.1977); Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So.2d 905 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). However, in determining whether failure to give a certain instruction constitutes error, we are required to consider th......