Motor Transit Company v. Hutchinson
19 So. 2d 57, 154 Fla. 798, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 819
Opinions
We think the record clearly and positively establishes contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff which bars recovery and therefore judgment should be reversed.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Motor Transit Company v. Hutchinson, 19 So. 2d 57, 154 Fla. 798, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 819 (Fla. 1944).
19 So. 2d 57 (Motor Transit Company v. Hutchinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Watkins
121 So. 95 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Dillon
64 So. 669 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Carter
65 So. 254 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
Kird v. New Orleans & N. W. Ry. Co.
60 L.R.A. 727 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1902)
Lacey v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
136 N.W. 878 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)