Oppenheimer v. Werner
| Decision Date | 13 June 1950 |
| Citation | 46 So.2d 870 |
| Parties | OPPENHEIMER et al. v. WERNER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellants.
W. F. Parker, Miami, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellee recovered a judgment for the sum of $11,655.72 against the defendants-appellants in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. It appears by the record that on December 11, 1947, the defendant, Ruth Kohl, now Ruth Kohl Oppenheimer, was driving her father's automobile in an easterly direction on 79th Street North East in the City of Miami and was in a line of traffic but separated from appellee-plaintiff's car by another automobile. The alleged negligence is that the defendant-appellant carelessly operated the automobile driven by her so as to collide with great force and shoved forward the automobile next in front of her car into the rear end of the car in which plaintiff-appellee was riding, thereby causing described personal injuries.
Counsel for appellants-defendants contend that the judgment entered below should be reversed because: (1) the trial court erred in directing the jury at the close of all the testimony as a matter of law, to find the defendants-appellants liable for whatever damages the plaintiff-appellee sustained as the proximate result of the collision; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury that any future damages rendered in behalf of the plaintiff-appellee would have to be reduced to a present value; the trial court attempted to cure the alleged error by reducing the amount of the verdict by an order of remittitur; (3) was the verdict of $15,000.00 and the judgment, in light of the injuries sustained, excessive?
We find no conflicts in the testimony to the effect that Miss Kohl, on December 11, 1947, was driving an automobile in the line of traffic or that her car put in motion the chain of events which caused the plaintiff's alleged injuries. We find disputes and conflicts on the point of whether or not Miss Kohl carelessly or negligently operated her car so as to injure the plaintiff. It was Miss Kohl's testimony that she operated the car in a proper manner at the time of the collision and that her foot slipped from the brake of the car and struck the accelerator, thereby causing it to plunge forward. She was operating the car with proper care for the rights of others when the flat bottom shoe she was wearing slipped from the brake. It was her testimony that the collision was an unavoidable accident.
The testimony of Howard L....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilkmeyer v. Latin Am. Air Cargo Expediters, Inc.
...jury as a question of fact under appropriate instructions.' Katz v. Bear, Fla. 1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904. See for example, Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headley, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miama, Fla.1952, 60 S......
-
Olin's, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Fla., Inc.
...to the jury as a question of fact under appropriate instructions.' Katz v. Bear, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 903, 904.' See Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 870; Chaney v. Headly, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 297; Bryan v. Loftin, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 724; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 17......
-
Roberts v. Kettner, 40588
...80 R.I. 224, 95 A.2d 454; Morrill v. Rountree, 242 Or. 320, 408 P.2d 932; Watford v. Morse, 202 Va. 605, 118 S.E.2d 681; Oppenheimer v. Werner (Fla.) 46 So.2d 870; Stephenson v. Wallis, 181 Kan. 254, 311 P.2d 355, 72 A.L.R.2d 1; Strauch v. Bieloh, 16 Cal.App.2d 278, 60 P.2d The trial court ......
-
Cooke v. Brown
...in support of their motion for directed verdicts. DETHMERS, C. J., and CARR and EDWARDS, JJ., concurred with SOURIS, J. 1 Oppenheimer v. Werner, Fla., 46 So.2d 870; Strauch v. Bieloh, 16 Cal.App.2d 278, 60 P.2d 582; Kennedy v. New England Bakery, 80 R.I. 224, 95 A.2d 454; Jansen v. Herkert,......