Hornbeck v. Crosby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hornbeck v. Crosby

279 So. 2d 38, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1973

DocketNo. 72-987

StatusPublished

This text of 279 So. 2d 38 (Hornbeck v. Crosby) 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

Hornbeck v. Crosby, 279 So. 2d 38, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this automobile negligence case, the plaintiffs suffered a directed verdict at the close of their case and now appeal from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiffs’ decedent was driving northbound on divided 4-lane U. S. No. 1 north of Cocoa, Florida. Nearing the intersection with Fay Boulevard, he entered the left turn lane, slowed to approximately 20 mph, and at the intersection made his turn to the west. Apparently, without stopping, he proceeded westerly across the width of the median strip and the easterly southbound lane, and was struck broadside by defendant’s southbound vehicle in the westerly southbound lane. Defendant, a Florida Highway patrolman operating a patrol car southbound on U. S. No. 1 at a speed in excess of 80 mph, approached the intersection while in the eastern most southbound lane but upon observing that plaintiffs’ decedent was making a left turn across his path, moved into the western most southbound lane. He took no other evasive action or sounded any warning up to the time of the collision.

Admittedly, this “statement of facts” takes the evidence and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs’ case. The trial court felt that on this set of facts, the contributory negligence of plaintiffs’ decedent was established as a matter of law. We are of the view that under this set of facts the question of his contributory negligence and whether it was the proximate cause of the collision under the doctrine of last clear chance, were issues properly for the jury. It was error to direct the verdict. Zimmerman v. Langlais, Fla.App. 1971, 248 So.2d 694; Copeland v. Perdue, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 537; Cash v. Gates, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 838.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur. REED, C. J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this automobile negligence case, the plaintiffs suffered a directed verdict at the close of their case and now appeal from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiffs’ decedent was driving northbound on divided 4-lane U. S. No. 1 north of Cocoa, Florida. Nearing the intersection with Fay Boulevard, he entered the left turn lane, slowed to approximately 20 mph, and at the intersection made his turn to the west. Apparently, without stopping, he proceeded westerly across the width of the median strip and the easterly southbound lane, and was struck broadside by defendant’s southbound vehicle in the westerly southbound lane. Defendant, a Florida Highway patrolman operating a patrol car southbound on U. S. No. 1 at a speed in excess of 80 mph, approached the intersection while in the eastern most southbound lane but upon observing that plaintiffs’ decedent was making a left turn across his path, moved into the western most southbound lane. He took no other evasive action or sounded any warning up to the time of the collision.

Admittedly, this “statement of facts” takes the evidence and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs’ case. The trial court felt that on this set of facts, the contributory negligence of plaintiffs’ decedent was established as a matter of law. We are of the view that under this set of facts the question of his contributory negligence and whether it was the proximate cause of the collision under the doctrine of last clear chance, were issues properly for the jury. It was error to direct the verdict. Zimmerman v. Langlais, Fla.App. 1971, 248 So.2d 694; Copeland v. Perdue, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 537; Cash v. Gates, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 838.

The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur. REED, C. J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 So. 2d 38, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornbeck-v-crosby-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack