Butz v. Rineheart

88 So. 2d 125, 1956 Fla. LEXIS 3766
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 28, 1956·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ROBERTS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial to plaintiff after the jury had returned a verdict in favor of defendant. The grounds of the trial judge’s order were (1) undue emphasis on the law of contributory negligence in his charge to the jury, and (2) an erroneous, charge on the law of the road, given at the request of the defendant.

We agree with the trial judge that his earlier charge on the law of the road was more appropriate in the circumstances of this case, and that it was error, under the facts here present, to give the charge requested by the defendant. This charge, and the repetition of the charges relating to contributory negligence, could reasonably have misled the jury to the plaintiff’s detriment; and the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in granting a new trial.

Affirmed.

DREW, ,C. J., . and TERRELL, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

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

Butz v. Rineheart, 88 So. 2d 125, 1956 Fla. LEXIS 3766 (Fla. 1956).

88 So. 2d 125 (Butz v. Rineheart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jefferson v. City of West Palm Beach
233 So. 2d 206 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Dunn Construction Co. v. Muti
119 So. 2d 303 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Tampa Transit Lines, Inc. v. Nickolai
113 So. 2d 863 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Royal Kitchen Cabinet Corp. v. Palcic ex rel. Palcic
111 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Claud W. Nesbit v. W. O. Everette
243 F.2d 59 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)