Miller v. Griffin, 62-577
| Decision Date | 28 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-577,62-577 |
| Citation | 154 So.2d 333 |
| Parties | Frank J. MILLER and the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Appellants, v. Juanita GRIFFIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Simmons & Dunwody and W. O. Mehrtens, Miami, for appellants.
Reynolds & Larotonda and Fred Patrox, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
The defendants appeal a final judgment entered subsequent to a directed verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The action was for personal injuries growing out of an automobile collision in which a truck owned by appellant-Firestone and driven by appellant-Miller struck the rear of plaintiff-appellee's automobile. The defendants plead contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in making an unexpected stop. The trial judge directed the verdict on liability at the conclusion of all of the evidence.
An examination of the defendant-driver's testimony reveals that he knew the plaintiff was slowing down, and that the accident occurred when he attempted to pass the slowing automobile. 1
In Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 376, this court upheld the action of the trial judge in denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on liability in a rear-end collision case. While setting forth that a presumption of negligence arose from the facts involved, it was held that 'an explanation from the defendant', together with the circumstances of the accident, were sufficient to rebut the presumption and present issues of negligence and contributory negligence for determination by the jury. It is to be noted that in the Jeskey case, the plaintiff (driver of the preceding automobile) made a sudden stop to avoid a car which cut in front of him. The instant case, on the other hand, involves a situation where the driver of the following car (the defendant) knew the preceding car was slowing down and didn't know what action it would take.
The second case which we think bears directly on point in the case upon appeal is Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113. There was a rear-end collision at a traffic light after plaintiff and defendant had been manually signaled by a policeman to proceed. The court found that one disputed issue of fact was whether the plaintiff had been stopped an appreciable period of time at the moment of impact. It was held that in view of the conflicting versions of plaintiff and defendant, it was within the jury's province to determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. Case
...v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 916; Brookbank v. Mathieu, Fla.App.1963, 152 So.2d 526; Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 333; Shaw v. Puleo, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 641; Benitez v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 520; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 2......
-
Demmy v. Sligh
...case of Souvorin v. Lerich, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 180. That case and Staicer v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 113, and Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 333, clearly hold that a verdict shall not be reversed unless it is made to appear that the error complained of has resulted in......
-
Bernstein v. Crossman, 64-377
...166 So.2d 820.2 Bellere v. Madsen, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 619, 80 A.L.R.2d 1; Stark v. Vasquez, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 140.3 Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 333; Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 376.4 Accord Kokotoff v. Higman, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d ...
-
Hudson v. Lehman, 6016
...& Cutler, Tampa, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jeskey v. Yellow Cab Co., Inc., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 376, and Miller v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 333. ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., ...