Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Stull

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Stull

345 So. 2d 864, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15619

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1685

StatusPublished

This text of 345 So. 2d 864 (Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Stull) 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

Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Stull, 345 So. 2d 864, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15619 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Judge.

The sole issue is whether the court below was correct as a matter of law in directing a verdict for the appellees/defendants. We hold that the court erred and accordingly reverse.

The minor plaintiff (then 10 years old) and two twelve year olds were playing with a two-wheeled boat trailer. They had placed a sheet of plywood over the trailer frame and would hitch the trailer to a bicycle. One would pedal while the other two would ride. The riders had no rails or anything else to hang on to.

Rodney Stull was driving by in an automobile. He responded to a call from the boys to hitch the trailer to his automobile and give them a ride. The boys,jumped on. Stull proceeded at a slow speed down a road which was not paved and which contained numerous stones and ruts or potholes. One of the trailer wheels hit a deep rut. The plaintiff was thrown from the trailer. His foot was caught between the trailer wheel and the road and severely injured before the defendant could bring the automobile (and trailer) to a stop.

Reasonable minds might differ as to whether or not the action of Rodney Stull was negligent under the circumstances. The plaintiff is entitled to have his evidence weighed and evaluated by a jury under appropriate instructions of the court. Hartnett v. Fowler, 94 So.2d 724 (Fla.1957); Lovings v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 340 So.2d 1279 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Mathis v. Lambert, 274 So.2d 601 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIMES, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

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

OTT, Judge.

The sole issue is whether the court below was correct as a matter of law in directing a verdict for the appellees/defendants. We hold that the court erred and accordingly reverse.

The minor plaintiff (then 10 years old) and two twelve year olds were playing with a two-wheeled boat trailer. They had placed a sheet of plywood over the trailer frame and would hitch the trailer to a bicycle. One would pedal while the other two would ride. The riders had no rails or anything else to hang on to.

Rodney Stull was driving by in an automobile. He responded to a call from the boys to hitch the trailer to his automobile and give them a ride. The boys,jumped on. Stull proceeded at a slow speed down a road which was not paved and which contained numerous stones and ruts or potholes. One of the trailer wheels hit a deep rut. The plaintiff was thrown from the trailer. His foot was caught between the trailer wheel and the road and severely injured before the defendant could bring the automobile (and trailer) to a stop.

Reasonable minds might differ as to whether or not the action of Rodney Stull was negligent under the circumstances. The plaintiff is entitled to have his evidence weighed and evaluated by a jury under appropriate instructions of the court. Hartnett v. Fowler, 94 So.2d 724 (Fla.1957); Lovings v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 340 So.2d 1279 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Mathis v. Lambert, 274 So.2d 601 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIMES, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 So. 2d 864, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-ex-rel-lynch-v-stull-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack