Stace v. Watson

Decision Date15 June 1963
Docket NumberNo. 19918.,19918.
Citation316 F.2d 715
PartiesGeorge Henry STACE et al., Appellants, v. Jesse Alvin WATSON et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

E. Snow Martin, Martin & Martin, Lakeland, Fla., for appellants.

Roy S. Levinson, Columbus, Ga., Wilson Sanders, Orlando, Fla., Sam Calhoun, Jr., Chatsworth, Ga., Maurice M. Paul, Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, McEwan, Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, Fla., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment granted to the plaintiffs in an action for damages for the death of plaintiffs' parents allegedly caused by the negligent operation of a tractor trailer driven by one of the defendants. The summary judgment was granted only on the issue of liability. The question of damages was submitted to the jury and a verdict of $36,000 was returned for the appellees.

Summary judgment was granted to the defendant on the complaint, the answer, answers to admissions which admitted the allegations of the complaint except the negligence of the defendant driver, the deposition of the defendant driver, and affidavits of two highway patrolmen in which they gave their opinions, conclusions and experiments they made regarding how the accident occurred.

The deposition of the defendant driver discloses that he was proceeding south on a highway when he turned left off the highway into a truck stop. Before turning he looked both in front and to the rear through the rear view mirror, seeing nothing. There were dips in the highway both to the north (behind) and to the south (in front) of the truck stop into which he was turning. At the time the tractor portion of his tractor trailer had reached the east side of the pavement, the vehicle driven by plaintiffs' deceased parents rammed into the tractor at the bumper. The automobile was proceeding north on the highway. The truck driver did not see the automobile until impact.

The defendant driver violated no law when he turned left off the highway into the truck stop which would hold him negligent per se. Liability could only rest on defendant's negligence from cutting in front of an oncoming vehicle, which was imminently close and proceeding at a legal rate of speed.

Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication and may be granted only where the facts are not only undisputed but are such that "all reasonable men, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Gross v. Southern Railway Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 30, 1969
    ...Machine Co., 5 Cir. 1964, 331 F.2d 405, 407; Roucher v. Traders & General Insurance Co., 5 Cir. 1956, 235 F.2d 423, 424; Stace v. Watson, 5 Cir. 1963, 316 F.2d 715, 716. See also, 6 Moore's Federal Practice, § 561.17(42) p. The rule was stated in St. John v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supr......
  • Banco Continental v. Curtiss Nat. Bank of Miami Springs
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 9, 1969
    ...issues of negligence are involved. See Roucher v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 423, 424; Stace v. Watson, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 715, 716. Reversed and FULTON, District Judge (concurring specially): I join with the majority to indicate my concurrence in their ......
  • Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1966
    ...4 As stated by the U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in a case arising in Florida and hence governed by Florida law, Stace v. Watson, C.A.Fla.1963, 316 F.2d 715: 'Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication and may be granted only where the facts are not......
  • Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1974
    ...involved; summary judgment for defendant reversed); Cellini v. Moss (C.A. DC 1956) (98 U.S.App.D.C. 114) 232 F.2d 371; Stace v. Watson (C.A.5th Cir., 1963) 316 F.2d 715; Meeks v. Appalachian Power Co. (SD W Va 1960) 180 F.Supp. 469 (denying summary judgment for defendant); Calhoun v. Northe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT