Stabile v. Lamb

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stabile v. Lamb

226 So. 2d 347, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5275

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 9, 1969

DocketNo. 69-124

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 2d 347 (Stabile v. Lamb) 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

Stabile v. Lamb, 226 So. 2d 347, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5275 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants in a rear-end collision case (the driver and his employer) appeal from a final judgment for the plaintiff. The trial judge entered a summary judgment as to liability. Trial was had only on the issue of damages.

Defendants contend on this appeal that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment as to liability because there was a genuine issue as to the driver’s negligence. They maintain that a jury could have found that a sudden stop by the plaintiff could have been a contributing cause of the collision. See Hott v. Funk, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 792; Bernstein v. Crossman, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 462.

The pleadings, answers to interrogatories, and depositions on file show there was no genuine 'issue of any material fact. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the defendants were liable as a matter of law. The contention that the plaintiff’s lawful stop (caused by a change of traffic signal) was an unexpected stop is not supportable. See Sawyers v. Dawson, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 764, and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

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