Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 02 May 1952 |
| Citation | 58 So.2d 869 |
| Parties | MIAMI PAPER CO. v. JOHNSTON (two cases). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford and A. Lee Bradford, all of Miami, for appellant.
E. F. P. Brigham, Burton M. Cohen, Miami, and Phillip Goldman, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Robert M. Johnston, a minor twenty-three months old, was injured by a truck of Miami Paper Company. Two suits were brought to recover damages for the injury, one by the father in his own right and one by the father as next friend of the minor. Both suits were tried together, the defendant moved for an instructed verdict four times during the trial and for judgment non obstante veredicto at the conclusion of the trial, all of which were denied. The jury returned a verdict of $10,000 for the father and $25,000 for the child. Motions for new trial were denied and defendant appealed.
It is first contended that defendant's motion for an instructed verdict should have been granted because there was no showing of negligence on the part of defendant and being so, there was nothing for submission to the jury.
There is very little dispute about the material facts. It is shown that the truck was in charge of and was driven to Tropics Trailer Park by an agent of defendant to make deliveries, that he parked the truck on the West side of the private driveway facing West and made delivery to the Park store room as was his custom, that the trailer park was a private enterprise and many children lived and played about the park, that more than one hundred children were at the park at the time the truck was parked and some of them were playing near it, that when the driver made his delivery he proceeded to the rear of the truck, looked down the right-hand side and saw nothing. He then walked along the left side of the truck and saw nothing, he mounted the driver's seat but did not look in front of the truck. He started forward without blowing his horn. When he had proceeded from three to five feet he felt a thud. He stopped the truck instantly and found the child lying three or four feet from it about midway between the front and rear wheels seriously injured. The right leg was broken below the knee, the body was badly bruised, the skin was torn from the right side but no one could tell how it got there or where it came from.
Under this state of facts, we think the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury and whether or not the driver of the truck was negligent in not looking in front of the truck before he started was a jury question. He was on notice that many children lived and played about the trailer park, that it was a private enterprise and catered to families and that children were playing near when he parked the truck. It is a matter of common knowledge that small children are erratic and unpredictable, that they are liable to take off at any time and in any direction with no concern whatever for their own safety. The drivers of motor vehicles are charged with knowledge of their behavior and are expected to govern themselves accordingly when parking or driving about school grounds, recreation parks, residential communities, trailer parks and other places inhabited by or frequented by children. They are expected to anticipate children about such places and whether or not they exercise reasonable care in doing so is a question for the jury.
The general rule supported by a wealth of authority is that one manipulating a motor vehicle on the highway, whether backing, starting, or proceeding ahead, must exercise reasonable care, circumstances being the guide as to what constitutes reasonable care. If he has reason to think that children may be near, reasonable caution requires that he be on the lookout for them. Gorzeman v. Artz, 13 Cal.App.2d 660, 57 P.2d 550; Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., 32 So.2d 52; Cunningham v. Sublett's Administrator, 306 Ky. 701, 208 S.W.2d 509; Frederiksen v. Costner, 99 Cal.App.2d 453, 221 P.2d 1008; Jacklich v. Starks, 338 Ill.App. 433, 87 N.E.2d 802; 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 396(d), p. 972.
Under the state of facts detailed the jury found against appellant and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maurice M.
...they are liable to take off at any time and in any direction with no concern whatever for their own safety.” Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So.2d 869, 870 (Fla.1952). This is especially true of two year old children, who, as every parent knows, have no sense of their own limitations and ar......
-
Butler v. Temples
...v. Brandenberg, 72 Ariz. 47, 230 P.2d 518; Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, 234 Minn. 333, 48 N.W.2d 525, and Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, Fla. 58 So.2d 869. The foregoing decisions of varying results are reconciliable in large measure upon the concept that the jury may reasonably f......
-
Coates v. United States
...law, anyone operating a motor vehicle must do so in a "careful and prudent manner." See Fla. Stat. § 316.192(5); Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So.2d 869, 871 (Fla. 1952) (providing "one manipulating a motor vehicle on the highway, whether backing, starting, or proceeding ahead, must exerc......
-
Burden v. Dickman
...tort actions have limited parental awards and are entirely silent on the question of ownership of the sums awarded. In Miami Paper Co. v. Johnston, 58 So.2d 869 (Fla.1952), the supreme court affirmed a $25,000 judgment in favor of the minor child but reversed the father's $10,000 judgment w......