Nackman v. Miessen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nackman v. Miessen

168 So. 2d 711

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1964

DocketNo. 64-26

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 So. 2d 711 (Nackman v. Miessen) 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

Nackman v. Miessen, 168 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the plaintiff in the court below is from a summary judgment in an action for personal injuries sustained when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by an automobile driven by the appellee.

The major issue on this appeal is the correctness of the summary judgment. The appellant contends that it was erroneous since the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable on all the facts and would preclude such a determination. In order to justify application of the last clear chance rule, there must be present adequate evi-dentiary support for each of the essential elements of the rule. The trial judge found, and we think correctly, that there was no clear factual support for an inference that the appellee driver saw or reasonably should have seen the appellant’s ward sufficiently in advance of the impact to enable her to avoid the injury. See Wilde v. Kelly, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 713; Douglas v. Hackney, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 301.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the plaintiff in the court below is from a summary judgment in an action for personal injuries sustained when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by an automobile driven by the appellee.

The major issue on this appeal is the correctness of the summary judgment. The appellant contends that it was erroneous since the doctrine of last clear chance was applicable on all the facts and would preclude such a determination. In order to justify application of the last clear chance rule, there must be present adequate evi-dentiary support for each of the essential elements of the rule. The trial judge found, and we think correctly, that there was no clear factual support for an inference that the appellee driver saw or reasonably should have seen the appellant’s ward sufficiently in advance of the impact to enable her to avoid the injury. See Wilde v. Kelly, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 713; Douglas v. Hackney, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 301.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nackman-v-miessen-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack