Summary
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a personal-injury action arising from a pedestrian being struck by an automobile in Miami Beach. The court held that the plaintiff’s own testimony supported submitting contributory negligence to the jury and that the jury instructions, considered as a whole, were not erroneous. The judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence supported submission of contributory negligence to the jury and the resulting verdict for the defendants.
- Whether the burden of proving contributory negligence remained with the defendants or shifted because Greiper's own testimony plainly supported an inference of contributory negligence.
- Whether the jury instructions, considered as a whole, correctly stated the burdens of proof and the effect of a plaintiff's contributory negligence.
- Whether the verdict was so unsupported by or contrary to the evidence that the trial court erred in refusing a new trial.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to submit contributory negligence to the jury because Greiper's own testimony showed that he failed to observe an approaching automobile while crossing a heavily traveled road at an unmarked crossing.
- The challenged jury instructions did not constitute reversible error because the instructions had to be considered together, and, viewed as a whole, they fairly presented the applicable law.
- The verdict for the defendants was supported by competent evidence and was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence; the trial court therefore properly refused to set it aside.
- Operators of motor vehicles must exercise ordinary, reasonable, or due care toward pedestrians, and both motorists and pedestrians must use public streets with due regard for one another's movements.
Key quotations
“The rule of law is well settled that the operator of a motor vehicle is required to exercise ordinary, reasonable, or due care toward pedestrians.” (at 296)
“Where there is a conflict or a dispute in the testimony on the issues made and the verdict so found by the jury is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and the question being one within the province of a jury to settle, the court should not set the verdict aside.” (at 299)
Factual background
On January 27, 1937, Greiper alighted from a streetcar near Fifth Street and Alton Road in Miami Beach and began crossing Alton Road toward buses. He crossed at an unmarked location on a heavily traveled arterial road and was struck by Coburn's automobile after taking two or three steps into the street, sustaining fractured ribs and an injured ankle. The evidence indicated that Greiper could have seen the approaching automobile for several blocks had he looked, and that the automobile stopped within five feet after its brakes were applied.
Procedural history
Greiper sued Helen F. Coburn and her husband in the Circuit Court of Dade County for injuries allegedly caused by Coburn's negligent automobile operation. The defendants pleaded contributory negligence. After the jury returned a verdict for the defendants, the trial court denied Greiper's motion for a new trial and entered final judgment for the defendants. Greiper appealed, asserting instructional error, insufficient evidentiary support for contributory negligence, and other trial errors.