Davis v. Holman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Holman

237 So. 2d 286, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1970

DocketNo. 69-1070

StatusPublished

This text of 237 So. 2d 286 (Davis v. Holman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Holman, 237 So. 2d 286, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6159 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the circuit court for damages resulting from injuries to his eight year old son who was struck by an automobile owned by appellee-husband and operated by appellee-wife.

The trial judge, at the close of plaintiff’s case, directed the jury to enter a verdict in favor of the defendants. Appellants seek reversal of the final judgment entered pursuant to the directed verdict.

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs of counsel and have concluded that the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for the defendants inasmuch as there was no evidence presented that would support the charges of negligence made against the defendant-driver. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs shows, as a matter of law, that the appellee-driver was not negligent and that the negligence of the minor plaintiff was the proximate cause of his injuries. Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 87; Nabelski v. Turner, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 729; and Baro v. Wilson, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 843. Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued in the circuit court for damages resulting from injuries to his eight year old son who was struck by an automobile owned by appellee-husband and operated by appellee-wife.

The trial judge, at the close of plaintiff’s case, directed the jury to enter a verdict in favor of the defendants. Appellants seek reversal of the final judgment entered pursuant to the directed verdict.

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs of counsel and have concluded that the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for the defendants inasmuch as there was no evidence presented that would support the charges of negligence made against the defendant-driver. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs shows, as a matter of law, that the appellee-driver was not negligent and that the negligence of the minor plaintiff was the proximate cause of his injuries. Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 87; Nabelski v. Turner, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 729; and Baro v. Wilson, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 843. Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 So. 2d 286, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-holman-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack