Porter v. State
Florida Supreme Court
88 So.2d 924 (1956)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Harvey Porter (defendant) was driving north on a country road at a speed of 60 to 65 miles per hour. There was no evidence in the record establishing the speed limit in the area; the court thus assumed that the speed limit was 60 miles per hour. Porter reached an intersection that was marked with a stop sign 112 feet from the intersection. The word “stop” was also painted on the road. There was no evidence that Porter had ever travelled on this road. The victim was driving west and reached the same intersection. The street on which the victim was travelling was marked with only a “slow” sign. Porter drove through the intersection without stopping. His vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle. The victim died as a result. A jury convicted Porter of manslaughter, and Porter appealed. On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, holding that Porter’s action in running the stop sign at a high rate of speed was culpable negligence and thus met the requirements of manslaughter. Under state law, culpable negligence meant negligence of a gross and flagrant character that evinced a reckless disregard of human life or reckless indifference to the rights of others. The dissent held that Porter’s negligence supported only a damage action, not a manslaughter conviction. Porter was granted a rehearing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
