Hyde v. Davis & Marr Supply Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hyde v. Davis & Marr Supply Co.

183 So. 2d 700, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5581

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1966

DocketNo. G-535

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 So. 2d 700 (Hyde v. Davis & Marr Supply 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

Hyde v. Davis & Marr Supply Co., 183 So. 2d 700, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5581 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a guest passenger in a motor vehicle driven by another, brought this action for damages sustained in a collision resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a vehicle owned by appellee and operated by one to whom it had been entrusted. Appellee interposed the defenses of general denial and contributory negligence. From a jugment for appellee entered upon the jury’s verdict, this appeal is taken.

The sole point on appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling denying appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence made after all evidence had been submitted and the case closed.

We have carefully reviewed the testimony and exhibits adduced at the trial and conclude that the question of appellants’ contributory negligence arises on a state of facts from which reasonable men might draw different conclusions, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury for its decision.¹ Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a guest passenger in a motor vehicle driven by another, brought this action for damages sustained in a collision resulting from the alleged negligent operation of a vehicle owned by appellee and operated by one to whom it had been entrusted. Appellee interposed the defenses of general denial and contributory negligence. From a jugment for appellee entered upon the jury’s verdict, this appeal is taken.

The sole point on appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling denying appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of contributory negligence made after all evidence had been submitted and the case closed.

We have carefully reviewed the testimony and exhibits adduced at the trial and conclude that the question of appellants’ contributory negligence arises on a state of facts from which reasonable men might draw different conclusions, and was therefore properly submitted to the jury for its decision.¹ Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 2d 700, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-v-davis-marr-supply-co-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack