LEMOYN WARNER, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ELIA PLANT, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a final judgment entered after a directed verdict for the defendant railway company. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no actionable negligence on the part of the engineer.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the engineer was not guilty of actionable negligence and that the plaintiff's appeal on this point was moot.
“The judgment is affirmed upon authority of the holding in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Holland, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 691.”
This quote establishes the primary legal basis for affirming the trial court's decision.
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, as executrix of the estate of Elia Plant, sued the Florida East Coast Railway Company. The trial court directed a verdict for the defen…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in the trial court appeals a final judgment for the defendant, Florida East Coast Railway. The final judgment was pursuant to a directed verdict entered at the close of all the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed upon authority of the holding in Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Holland, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 691.
The appellant raises one other point directed to an interlocutory order which struck an allegation that the defendant had been negligent in employing the engineer of the train. This point has become moot by the finding of the trial judge, affirmed upon appeal, that the engineer was not guilty of actionable negligence as far as this plaintiff is concerned. See Mallory v. O’Neil, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 313; 35 Am. Jur., Master and Servant, § 548 (1941).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bambrick v. Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Orlando, 192 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…n the amount of money deposited in the bank by the depositor. Since the contract is not in writing the action is governed by the three year statute of limitations.” See also Fidelity National Bank of West Fort Lauderdale v. Valachovic, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 33; 10 Am.Jur.2d, Banks, § 453; Annotation, 3 A.L.R.2d 809, 827, § 22; Annotation, 87 A.L.R. 344.…
-
Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. THE Florida BAR, 389 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…paid to the payee. The payee would be entitled to recover from the Defendant for conversion of the check as a result of its payment on a forged and unauthorized endorsement. Fla.Stat. 673.3-419(l)(c) [sic]. See Fidelity National Bank v. Valachovis, 163 So. 2d 33 (Fla. DCA 2 1964) [sic]. Ergo, Plaintiff as assignee of the payee’s cause of action, is entitled to recover from Defendant the sum of $4,300 which is the amount of the actual loss sustained by payee. (The check was in the sum of $5,000.). There is n…
Authorities Cited
- Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1954)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Holland, 79 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1955)