Bradford v. Lewis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bradford v. Lewis

596 So. 2d 1139, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2699, 1992 WL 48706

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 18, 1992·No. No. 91-1837·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. The appellants claim reversible error in the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on the careless driving statute. We believe the matters set out in that statute were sufficiently covered in the court’s instructions on negligence and causation so as to preclude a finding of any substantial harm. We find no error in the other issues raised on appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. The appellants claim reversible error in the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on the careless driving statute. We believe the matters set out in that statute were sufficiently covered in the court’s instructions on negligence and causation so as to preclude a finding of any substantial harm. We find no error in the other issues raised on appeal.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Bradford v. Lewis, 596 So. 2d 1139, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2699, 1992 WL 48706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

596 So. 2d 1139 (Bradford v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related