MATHEW (SOMETIMES CALLED MACK) RAYAM
v.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.
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.
This case involves a plaintiff suing a railroad company for damages after his car collided with a loaded flat car obstructing a highway. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer, finding the plaintiff's declaration lacked allegations of the railroad's negligence that proximately caused the injury.
No, the amended declaration failed to allege any negligent conduct by the defendant railroad company that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. The allegations were insufficient to establish a basis for recovery.
“The amended declaration attempted to state a cause of action against a railroad company for damages incurred when plaintiff’s automobile being driven by plaintiff in the night time on a public highway came into collision with a flat car loaded with steel rails standing on defendant’s railroad tracks, the same being a spur or service track and not a main line, and when such car was loaded was stopped and standing on the tracks obstructing the highway by reason of the fact that the engine used in moving the car had become derailed.”
Describes the factual basis of the plaintiff's claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's automobile, driven at night, collided with a flat car loaded with steel rails that was stopped and obstructing a public highway. The o…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error in this case is to review a judgment in favor of the defendant o?i demurrer sustained to an amended declaration. The amended declaration attempted to state a cause of action against a railroad company for damages incurred when plaintiff’s automobile being driven by plaintiff in the night time on a public highway came into collision with a flat car loaded with steel rails standing on defendant’s railroad tracks, the same being a spur or service track and not a main line, and when such car was loaded was stopped and standing on the tracks obstructing the highway by reason of the fact that the engine used in moving the car had become derailed.
The declaration on its face shows that the plaintiff was familiar with the locality and conditions and that he knew of the location of the railroad track and that it was sometimes used by the railroad company over which to move trains.
The allegations of the declaration are sufficient to show that the plaintiff was guilty of some contributory negligence.
We do not think that the sustaining of the demurrer can be upheld on the ground that the cause of action, if there is any, is not within the purview of Section 4965 R. G. S., 7052 C. G. L., or that it is supported on authority of A. C. L. Railroad Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121, 52 *388Sou. 712; Tampa Electric Co. v. Soule, 84 Fla. 557, 94 Sou. 692; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Mann, 91 Fla. 648, 108 Sou. 890. A careful perusal of the declaration, however, fails to reveal any allegation of negligent conduct on the part of the defendant, its agents or servants, which was the proximate cause of the injury alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff and as the allegations of the declaration are not such as to bring the alleged injury within the purview of Section 4964 R. G. S., 7051 C. G. L., they are insufficient to constitute a basis of recovery for the plaintiff.
Therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur specially.
(concurring in an affirmance of the judgment). — The amended declaration contains oyer five pages of allegations relating largely to acts of omission and commission by the defendant, but the only allegations as to the negligence of the defendant are:
“Plaintiff represents that the said wounds and injuries and loss and damages have each and all been caused by and are the proximate injuries and damages from, and have resulted from, the gross fault, negligence and carelessness of defendant and the persons in its employ and service in the running of said engine, train and cars, and the doing and failure to do said things herein referred to and set out.”
As is sufficiently pointed out in a ground of the demurrer, the quoted allegations do not indicate which of the alleged acts or omissions were negligently done and the declaration is so framed that it does not allege any particular negligence that proximately caused the alleged injury to the *389plaintiff. As the plaintiff declined to further amend the amended declaration when the demurrer thereto was sustained, it was proper to render judgment for the defendant.
Whitfield, C. J.
(concurring in an affirmance of the judgment). — The amended declaration contains oyer five pages of allegations relating largely to acts of omission and commission by the defendant, but the only allegations as to the negligence of the defendant are:
“Plaintiff represents that the said wounds and injuries and loss and damages have each and all been caused by and are the proximate injuries and damages from, and have resulted from, the gross fault, negligence and carelessness of defendant and the persons in its employ and service in the running of said engine, train and cars, and the doing and failure to do said things herein referred to and set out.”
As is sufficiently pointed out in a ground of the demurrer, the quoted allegations do not indicate which of the alleged acts or omissions were negligently done and the declaration is so framed that it does not allege any particular negligence that proximately caused the alleged injury to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff declined to further amend the amended declaration when the demurrer thereto was sustained, it was proper to render judgment for the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 56 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1951)…s contend that the ruling of the lower court is sustained by the following authorities: Key West Electric Co. v. Albury, 91 Fla. 695, 109 So. 223; Stowers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 106 Fla. 102, 142 So. 882; Rayam v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 119 Fla. 386, 161 So. 415; Kimball v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533; Woods v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 100 Fla. 909, 130 So. 601; Cline v. Powell, 141 Fla. 119, 192 So. 628; Denton v. Atlantic & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co., 141 Fla. 153, 1…
-
Ada C. Cline v. Powell, 141 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1939)…2 Fla. 310, 109 So. 427; Ballas v. Lake Weir Light, etc., Co., 100 Fla. 913, 130 Sou. 421; Warner v. Goding, 91 Fla. 260, 107 Sou. 406. See also Butler v. Sou. Ry. Co., 63 Fla. 95, 58 Sou. 225. However, in Rayam v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 229 Fla. 386, 161 Sou. 415, we held: “Declaration which showed that motorist familiar with locality and general conditions was injured at night when he drove automobile against flat car blocking highway across service track, due to derailment of locomotive, but which [*125]…
-
Clark v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 141 Fla. 155 (Fla. 1939)…te. Section 7052 (4965) C. G. L. We think the case at bar is ruled by Key West Electric Co. v. Albury, 91 Fla. 695, 109 So. 223.” See also Stowers v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 106 Fla. 102, 142 So. 882; Rayam v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 119 Fla. 386, 161 So. 415. In the light of the authority of these cases, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered. [*160] Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1910)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Julien Soule, 84 Fla. 557 (Fla. 1922)