ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. B. HILLHOUSE, 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.
A railroad company challenged a judgment awarding damages for an allegedly struck horse. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the horse was actually struck by the train, as the physical evidence contradicted the claim.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the horse was struck by the train. The physical facts in evidence negated any supposition that the horse was injured by the train, and the condition and position of the horse and buggy repelled an inference that the train had struck the horse.
“In an action under the statute to recover for "damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives or cars" of a railroad company, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of was caused by the running of the locomotives or cars of the defendant railroad company.”
Establishes the plaintiff's burden of proof in railroad injury cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHillhouse brought an action for damages against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, alleging that his horse was struck by the company's train. The h…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Causation In Tort Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
Hillhouse brought an action to recover damages for the loss of a horse alleged to have been struck by a train of the railroad company. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. In an action under the statute to recover for “damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives or cars” of a railroad company, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of was caused by the running of the locomotives or cars of the defendant railroad company. Until the plaintiff sufficiently alleges and proves substantially as alleged, the fact of an actionable injury caused by the running of the engine or cars of a railroad company, the statute raises no presumption of negligence against the company. Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 South. Rep. 618.
In this case there is no testimony that the plaintiff’s horse was struck by the defendant’s train as alleged, and the physical facts in evidence negative any supposition that the horse was injured by the train. It appears that the horse harnessed to a buggy was after dark hitched to a lamp post within a few feet of the railroad track and near the corner of the depot building, and that an hour or more later the horse was found still hitched to the post, but it was lying between the shafts of the buggy injured in the rear of its back. The buggy was not injured, and the position of the horse and the buggy indicates that the train could not have struck the horse as alleged. The injury was apparently a peculiar one. There is no evidence that the train ran against the horse and the condition and position of the horse and the buggy repel an inference that the horse was struck by the train. Under these circumstances the liability of the defendant company does not appear. The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Tayior, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa Elec. Co. v. Julien Soule, 84 Fla. 557 (Fla. 1922)…sed the injury. When that fact is shown then [*569] only does the presumption arise against the railroad corporation that the act was a negligent one. See Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 South. Rep. 618; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hillhouse, 64 Fla. 173, 60 South. Rep. 339; Lofton v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 61 Fla. 293, 54 South. Rep. 959; Payne, Director General of Railroads v. McKinnon, 81 Fla. 583, 88 South. Rep. 495; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Smith, 53 Fla. 375, 43 South. Rep. 235; Florida Ea…
Authorities Cited
- Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1911)