Dunn v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunn v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.

781 So. 2d 1153, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2001 WL 273832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-2199

StatusPublished

This text of 781 So. 2d 1153 (Dunn v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.) 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

Dunn v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 781 So. 2d 1153, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2001 WL 273832 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury in this case that a violation of section 316.194(1), Florida Statutes (2000), was evidence of negligence. That section was not applicable to the vehicle maneuver here at issue, since appellant did not “stop” his vehicle within the meaning of section 316.003(52), Florida Statutes (2000). However, based on an examination of the entire case, we find that the error complained of did not result in a miscarriage of justice, so that it is harmless. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2000).

On the remaining issues, the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for directed verdict, since there was an issue of negligence on his part that should have been resolved by the jury. See McCloud v. Swanson, 681 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The expert’s testimony was admissible under Nathanson v. Houss, 717 So.2d 114, 116-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appellant that the trial court incorrectly charged the jury in this case that a violation of section 316.194(1), Florida Statutes (2000), was evidence of negligence. That section was not applicable to the vehicle maneuver here at issue, since appellant did not “stop” his vehicle within the meaning of section 316.003(52), Florida Statutes (2000). However, based on an examination of the entire case, we find that the error complained of did not result in a miscarriage of justice, so that it is harmless. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2000).

On the remaining issues, the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for directed verdict, since there was an issue of negligence on his part that should have been resolved by the jury. See McCloud v. Swanson, 681 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The expert’s testimony was admissible under Nathanson v. Houss, 717 So.2d 114, 116-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

781 So. 2d 1153, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2001 WL 273832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-usaa-casualty-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack