Winthrop v. Carinhas

• Decision Date: 09 April 1940
• Citation: 195 So. 399,142 Fla. 588
• Parties: WINTHROP v. CARINHAS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

195 So. 399

142 Fla. 588

WINTHROP v. CARINHAS et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

April 9, 1940

Error from Circuit Court Duval County; Miles W. Lewis, Judge.

Action by Jeannie Winthrop, a widow, against John G. Carinhas and Manuel Jesus Carinhas, individually and doing business as Independence Fish Company, for injuries juries sustained by plaintiff while she was a guest passenger in defendants' automobile. Verdict for defendants, and to review the judgment thereon, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL Charles Cook Howell, Charles Cook Howell, Jr. and J. S. Harrison, all of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Marks Marks, Holt, Gray & Yates, of Jacksonville, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD Presiding Justice.

Writ of error was taken to a judgment for defendants in an action for damages for personal injuries received by a guest passenger in an automobile.

In the first count of the declaration it is alleged that on November 21, 1937, the plaintiff was a guest passenger in a motor vehicle which was being driven and operated by the defendants across the St. Johns River Bridge, a public highway, in Jacksonville, Florida; that said motor vehicle was driven and operated carelessly, recklessly and with gross negligence, and with a reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff, at a rate of speed greater than was reasonable and proper, so as to endanger the life and limb of the plaintiff and other persons using the highway, so that thereby and on account thereof said motor vehicle ran into, upon and against, and collided with, a certain device or appliance attached to and projecting from and above the floor of said bridge, and was suddenly and violently thrown out of its forward course and its line of travel, and was overturned, thereby the plaintiff was injured. That her injuries were caused by the gross negligence of the defendants in the operation of said vehicle. Damages in $25,000 were claimed.

In the second count it is alleged that the motor vehicle was owned by the defendants and with their knowledge and consent was being driven and operated as alleged and with resulting injuries as alleged in the first count. A bill of particulars listed $625 expenses incurred and pecuniary losses sustained by plaintiff as alleged. Trial was had on a plea of not guilty. Verdict for the defendants was returned and judgment entered thereon for the defendants. A new trial was denied.

It appears from the evidence that the driver of the automobile was acquainted with the bridge; when he was approaching the bridge at about 9 P. M. he was going at a rate of 'about 30 to 40 miles per hour'; the guest passenger called the driver's attention to the high speed; in mounting the incline at the south end of the bridge 'going up his slowed me up'; the top, level portion of the bridge was thoroughly wellighted as the automobile approached it; lighted signs, 'Slow' and '15 miles per hour', were in front of the car and could have been seen by the driver; there are three traffic lanes on the bridge; one each for the north and south bound traffic, and a passing lane between them; at the south end of the top, level portion of the bridge a 'safety island' is provided for the safety of the ticket takers on the bridge; the 'island' is alongside the right-hand traffic lane of northbound automobiles between the north lane and the middle one; the 'island' is about eighteen inches or two feet wide, runs lengthwise the bridge approximately thirty-five feet, and is raised six or eight inches above the surface of the bridge; the 'island' is constructed of concrete, and the south end of it is protected by a heavy iron device the same width as the 'island' and is about three feet above the surface of the 'island' and about three and a half feet above the surface of the bridge. A red 50-watt light bulb is attached to the top of the device, and the light was burning; the automobile mounted the bridge in the right-hand or northbound traffic lane; just before reaching the 'safety island' on the bridge, the driver was blinded by the appearance of bright lights of an automobile coming south in the middle lane of the bridge; the car had a bridge tag and the driver did not have to stop to pay fare; the defendants' automobile struck the lighted iron or 'gator head' alongside the north or right traffic lane with great force; the car was overturned on the bridge and the guest passenger was seriously injured.

Plaintiff in error presents the following questions:

'1. Is it gross negligence to operate an automobile under these facts and circumstances:

'At 9 P. M., on the brilliantly lighted St. Johns River Bridge at Jacksonville, approaching a red neon warning light reading 'Slow', and an illuminated sign admonishing '15 miles per hour', the automobile, operated by a driver throughly familiar with the locus, is driven at a speed of approximately 30 miles per hour in a straight line, with no deviation in its course, directly into an iron guard, at the end of a safety island, which stands 18 inches wide, and 3 1/2 feet high, and bearing a 50 watt red, burning, electric light.'

'2. Is the legal situation posited in the preceding question affected by the fact that the excuse given for such operation of the automobile was that suddenly the driver was confronted by a bright light which blinded him--it appearing without doubt that he could have seen the 'blinding light' several hundred feet before striking the obstacle, that he never slowed down, and never changed the course or direction of his car?'

'3. In a personal injury action by a guest passenger in an automobile against the driver, is the following charge to the jury correct:

"Gross negligence may also be defined as that degree and quality of negligence that is characterized by an absence of any care on the

...