SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN J. ELLIS, APPELLEE
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.
Seaboard Air Line Railroad appealed a judgment rendered against it in a Federal Safety Appliance Act case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict on liability, the sustaining of objections to expert testimony, or the amount of the verdict.
The appellate court held that no error was demonstrated on the record. The directed verdict was proper because no evidence suggested the appliance operated efficiently or that Ellis attempted to operate it improperly. The objection to expert testimony was properly preserved for appeal only if the testimony was proffered after objections were sustained, which did not occur here. The verdict amount was not excessive given the evidence of substantial earnings loss, permanent impairment, and other relevant factors.
“It does not appear from the record that there was any evidence which would have warranted a finding by the jury either that the appliance in question operated efficiently or that the injured party attempted to operate it improperly under the circumstances.”
Supports the propriety of the directed verdict on liability; establishes that no genuine issue of fact existed for the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was an action under the Federal Safety Appliance Act. The injured party (Ellis) alleged that a safety appliance operated by the railroad was defe…
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 Excessiveness Of Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant railroad, defendant in the trial court, appeals an adverse final judgment and contends that the trial court erred in (1) directing a verdict on liability, (2) sustaining the objections to certain questions propounded to its expert, and (3) excessiveness of the verdict. No error has been demonstrated on this record, and therefore, the appellant’s contentions are found to be without merit.
As to the first point, this was an action under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. The trial judge directed a verdict at the close of all tlie evidence. It does not appear from the record that there was any evidence which would have warranted a finding by the jury either that the appliance in question operated efficiently or that the injured party attempted to operate it improperly under the circumstances. As to the second, counsel for the railroad having failed to proffer the testimony of the witness after the objections to the questions were sustained, this point is not well taken on appeal. Ritter’s Hotel v. Sidebothom, Fla.1940, 142 Fla. 171, 194 So. 322; Andrews v. Cardosa, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 43; Green v. Hood, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 223; City of Hialeah v. Revels, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 400. As to the third, the verdict was not such as to warrant a new trial on the ground of excessiveness, when the evidence established that the injured party had suffered substantial loss of earnings until the date of the trial, a 30% permanent physical impairment, and taking into account his life expectancy, the nature of his education, background and previous employment.
No error having been demonstrated, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ritter's Hotel, Inc. v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1940)
- Green v. Hood, 120 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Iva J. Andrews and Harry J. Andrews v. Cardosa, 97 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- City OF Hialeah v. Revels, 123 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)