Napowsa v. Linville

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Napowsa v. Linville

172 So. 2d 623, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1965

DocketNo. 5120

StatusPublished

This text of 172 So. 2d 623 (Napowsa v. Linville) 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

Napowsa v. Linville, 172 So. 2d 623, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Walters D. Napowsa, who was plaintiff below, appeals from a jury verdict for the defendant in a guest-passenger personal injury case.

The plaintiff was a passenger m a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Sometime after 11:30 P. M., on March 10, 1963, the plaintiff and defendant entered a drive-in theatre, which had a single driveway about 12S yards in length. This drive-way serves as entrance and exit to the drive-in theatre and intersects with a county road, but does not extend beyond the county road. As the plaintiff and defendant left the theatre, the car crossed the county road and ended up in a ditch, resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

The issues in the case below were gross negligence of the defendant, and assumption [624]*624of risk and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. ■

We have studied the evidence in this case and the excellent briefs of the parties and conclude that this was purely a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the defendant-appellee, Linville.

Finding no reversible error in the record, we affirm the lower court.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, TJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Walters D. Napowsa, who was plaintiff below, appeals from a jury verdict for the defendant in a guest-passenger personal injury case.

The plaintiff was a passenger m a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Sometime after 11:30 P. M., on March 10, 1963, the plaintiff and defendant entered a drive-in theatre, which had a single driveway about 12S yards in length. This drive-way serves as entrance and exit to the drive-in theatre and intersects with a county road, but does not extend beyond the county road. As the plaintiff and defendant left the theatre, the car crossed the county road and ended up in a ditch, resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

The issues in the case below were gross negligence of the defendant, and assumption [624]*624of risk and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. ■

We have studied the evidence in this case and the excellent briefs of the parties and conclude that this was purely a jury question, which was resolved in favor of the defendant-appellee, Linville.

Finding no reversible error in the record, we affirm the lower court.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, TJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 So. 2d 623, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napowsa-v-linville-fladistctapp-1965.