Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

148 Fla. 173

3 So.2d 879

Ward v. Everett

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 19, 1941

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1941-09-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Plaintiff in error was struck by an automobile and seriously injured. He brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the testimony the court indicated that a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant would be granted whereupon plaintiff moved a nonsuit which was allowed and from which writ of error was taken. "The only question presented is whether or not the evidence of negligence was such that it should have gone to the jury to determine that point. "[1, 2] The injury was shown but the test of whether damages should be awarded is not the fact of injury but the fact of whose negligence caused the injury. To entitle plaintiff to recover, the injury must have been caused by the negligence of the operator of the defendant's automobile. Applying this test to the case at bar, we find no reason to impute negligence to the defendant. The driver of the car appears to have been driving carefully, was observing the rules of the road, and was taking all the precautions required of him. From the evidence adduced, there was no theory under which she could be held responsible so the judgment is affirmed. "Affirmed."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 315 So. 2d 203 - Novitch v. Nu Way Auto Service

“Plaintiff in error was struck by an automobile and seriously injured. He brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the testimony the court indicated that a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant would be granted whereupon plaintiff moved a nonsuit which was allowed and from which writ of error was taken.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 315 So. 2d 203 - Novitch v. Nu Way Auto Service

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1941-09-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1991

14 state decisions

60194119501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Terrell, J.

¶1 Plaintiff in error was struck by an automobile and seriously injured. He brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the testimony the court indicated that a motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant would be granted whereupon plaintiff moved a non suit which was allowed and from which writ of error was taken.

¶2 The only question presented is whether or not the evidence of negligence was such that it should have gone to the jury to determine that point.

¶3 The injury was shown but the test of whether damages should be awarded is not the fact of injury but the fact of whose negligence caused the injury. To entitle plaintiff to recover, the injury must have been caused by the negligence of the operator of the defendant’s automobile. Applying this test to the case at bar, we'find no reason to impute negligence to the defendant. The driver of the car appears to have been driving carefully, was observing the rules of the road, and was taking all the precautions re'quired of him. From the evidence adduced, there was *175 no theory under which she could be held responsible so the judgment is affirmed.

¶4 Affirmed.

Brown, C. J., Chapman, and Thomas, J. J. concur.
/148/fla/173 · .json · Public domain