THE FLORIDA CENTRAL AND PENINSULAR RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CHARLES E. DAVIS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict awarding damages for the negligent killing of a dog by a railroad company. The court held that dogs constitute taxable property in Florida, and railroad companies may be held liable for their negligent destruction.
A railroad company is liable for the negligent killing of a dog where the dog constitutes taxable property under Florida law. The court held that the demurrer was properly overruled because the declaration stated a valid cause of action.
“In this State a dog is property and taxable as other personal property.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that dogs have the status of taxable property in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff owned a dog upon which he paid taxes. The dog went onto the defendant railroad's tracks at a location commonly traveled by pedestrians. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Shackleford, J.
Tlie defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, brought an action against the plaintiff in error in the Madison county Circuit Court for the alleged negligent killing of a dog. The declaration alleged in substance that plaintiff was possessed of a certain dog, upon which he was paying taxes, and that said dog went upon the railroad of defendant at a place that was commonly traveled by pedestrians,\lnd that while said dog was so upon said railroad of defendant it was negligently struck and killed by the locomotive and train of cars of defendant, the damages being laid at $200.00. A. demurrer was interposed by the defendant to the declaration upon the grounds that no cause of action was set forth therein and that no “cause of action can accrue in this State to any damage done to dogs, such as the declaration sets forth and claims.” The demurer was overruled, pleas filed and trial had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $50.00. The defendant seeks reversal by writ of error.
The testimony is not brought up and the only error assigned is the overruling of the demurrer. In this State a dog is property and taxable as other personal property. Chapter 4322 laws of Florida, section 16, acts of 1895, p.
17. Where dogs are returned by the owner for taxation, the larceny or malicious killing, wounding or injuring thereof is made a crime. Chapter 4164 laws of Florida, acts of 1893, p.
94. In those States where dogs are held to be property, the decided weight of authority seems to be to the effect that a railroad company is liable for the negligent killing thereof. See St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Hauks, 78 Texas, 300, 14 S. W. Rep. 691, S. C. 11 L.
R. A. 383; St. Louis S.
W. Ry. Co. v. Stanfield, 63 Ark. 643, 40 S.
W. Rep. 126, S. C. 37 L.
R. A. 659; Fink v. Evans, 95 Tenn. 413, 32 S.
W. Rep. 307; Jones v. Bond, 40 Fed. Rep. 281; 3 Elliott on Railroads, Sec. 1190; Graham v. Smith, 100, Ga. 434, 28 S.
E. Rep. 225, 40 L.
R. A. note 503-509; Citizens’ Rapid-Transit Co. v. Dew, 100 Tenn. 317, 45 S.
W. Rep. 790, S. C. 40 L.
R. A.
518. No error was committed in overruling the demurrer. The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered at the cost of the plaintiff in error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levine v. Knowles, 197 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…y, the court should leave the question to the jury.” * * * * * * Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for action consistent herewith. It is so ordered. . Section 811.19, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Davis, 45 Fla. 276, 34 So. 218 (1903). See also Section 200.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . 3 C..T.S. Animals § 3; 3 C.J. Animals § in, p. 16. . Morris Punitive Damages in Tort eases, 44 Harv.L.Rev. 1173, at 1184, (reprinted in Studies in the Law of Torts 339, at 351…
-
Nassie O. Coker v. A. C. Rogers, Inc., 157 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1946)…he order appealed from. In the consideration of this question the writer has been governed by the opinions of this Court in Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876; F. C. & P. Ry. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 So. 338, F. C. & P. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 45 Fla. 276, 34 So. 218 and Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918. The only deviation to be found is, that in this case, interest was computed from the date of the wrongful act to date of the verdict on the amount which could be recovered after…