SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, SUCCESSOR TO ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT-DEFENDANT,
v.
LEILA ALICE BELL, APPELLEE-PLAINTIFF
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 reversed a jury verdict for a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case, finding insufficient evidence of negligence by the railroad company. The court held that the absence of a side handrail on a ramp, when a central handrail was available, did not constitute negligence.
No, the absence of a handrail on the side wall of the ramp did not constitute negligence because a central handrail was available and sufficient for safe passage.
“Out of an abundance of fairness to the plaintiff the able judge before whom this slip-and-fall case was tried allowed it to go to the jury and entered judgment on its verdict, though he expressed to counsel reservations about the lack of evidence to prove negligence.”
Describes the trial judge's actions and reservations about the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff fell while walking down a ramp at a railroad terminal. The ramp descended 10 feet over 90 feet and had a central handrail. There was no …
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 Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
Out of an abundance of fairness to the plaintiff the able judge before whom this slip-and-fall case was tried allowed it to go to the jury and entered judgment on its verdict, though he expressed to counsel reservations about the lack of evidence to prove negligence.
Appellee fell at the Jacksonville railroad terminal while walking down a ramp which descended 10 feet over a distance of 90 feet. A handrail was available in the middle of the ramp. There was no foreign substance on the walk.
We have searched the record in vain for some negligence on defendant’s part. The absence of a handrail on the side wall cannot itself constitute negligence in the construction of this ramp when another handrail was available to anyone who needed it. Fowler v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 372 S.W.2d 497 (Mo.Ct.App.1963); Stowe v. Gallant-Belk Co., 107 Ga.App. 80, 129 S.E.2d 196 (1962); Darrach v. Trustees of San Francisco County Medical Ass’n, 121 Cal.App.2d 362, 263 P.2d 469 (1953).
Accordingly, this cause must be reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the defendant.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Partelow v. Edgar, 219 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…constitute dangerous hazards, thus giving rise to liability under any set of circumstances. In the absence of a showing of some negligence on the part of defendant, there can be no liability. See Seaboard Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Bell, Fla. App.1968, 212 So. 2d 358, and Commercial Credit Corp. v. Varn, Fla.App. 1959, 108 So. 2d 638. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is Affirmed. REED, J., and MURPHREE, JOHN A. H., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…mistake connected with the sale, or unless there is a showing that the price paid by the successful bidder was inadequate. As to that part of the general rule relating to fraud or mistake connected with the sale, see Watson v. Vafides, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 358; 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capitol Company, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 739. Neither fraud nor mistake connected with the sale (such as improper description of the property, 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capitol Company, supra) has been made to show he…
-
O'Malley v. McMULLEN, 294 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…free and unrestricted bidding? A partition sale is subject to confirmation,2 and the law is well settled that - whether or not to confirm a judicial sale rests within the sound discretion of the chancellor.3 In Watson v. Vafides, Fla.App.lst, 1968, 212 So. 2d 358, the court said: “A judicial sale, at the best, does not generally afford the most advantageous forum for the sale of property, and if the chancellor is of the opinion that the sensitive concern of equity will be best satisfied by not confirming a…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence