ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FREDDIE DOUGLAS FELDER, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to a plaintiff injured in a train-vehicle collision, finding no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings. The court held that the jury properly considered questions of negligence and proximate causation.
No reversible error was demonstrated. The questions of negligence and proximate causation were properly submitted to the jury, the jury charges were not erroneous, and the verdict was not shown to be excessive.
“On the evidence, the questions of negligence of the parties and of proximate causation were jury questions which were properly and fairly submitted to the jury for determination.”
Establishes that the court found the jury's role in determining negligence and causation was appropriate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee sued the appellant railway company for personal injuries sustained when his motor vehicle collided with the appellant's train. The jury r…
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant railway company appeals a judgment based on a jury verdict rendered for the appellee, who sued appellant for damages for personal injuries received in a collision between a train and a motor vehicle he was operating. Having heard oral argument and considered the record and briefs with reference to the several points urged by appellant, we conclude that reversible error has not been demonstrated, and affirm the judgment. A principal contention of appellant was that the plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. On the evidence, the questions of negligence of the parties and of proximate causation were jury questions which were properly and fairly submitted to the jury for determination. The cases of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 481, and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Walker, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 420, cited and relied on by appellant, are not considered in point because of factual differences. On reading the court’s charges we conclude the trial judge was not in error in rejecting certain requested charges. We find no er*299ror in the charges given by the court which were singled out by appellant. The verdict was not shown to be excessive so as to warrant interference on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Price, 46 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1950)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Walker, 113 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)