ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. F. TERRY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a crossing accident case, finding carelessness on both sides. The court determined the judgment was excessive and required a remittitur to avoid reversal and a new trial.
The court held that the judgment was excessive. It allowed the judgment to stand only if the plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $5,000.00; otherwise, the judgment would be reversed and a new trial granted.
“As .to the plaintiff in error there is evidence showing that it was operating its train at a rate of speed in violation of the city ordinance and the defendant in error appears to have been driving headlong down the street heedless of his own safety when the unfortunate accident occurred.”
Establishes the comparative negligence of both parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a crossing accident where evidence suggested the railroad operated its train at an excessive speed, violating a city ordinance. The …
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 Apportionment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This is one of those unfortunate crossing accident cases that have too frequently appeared in this Court of late years. The record has been examined and it exhibits a degree of carelessness on the part of both parties to the cause. As .to the plaintiff in error there is evidence showing that it was operating its train at a rate of speed in violation of the city ordinance and the defendant in error appears to have been driving headlong down the street heedless of his own safety when the unfortunate accident occurred. No new questions are presented and an opinion on those raised would contribute nothing to our judicial policy. It is a case for apportionment of damages under the statute, Section 4965 Revised General Statutes of *5161920 (Section 7052 Compiled General Laws of 1927), which was not done as the law directs. The judgment is excessive but will be permitted to stand if the plaintiff below will within thirty days enter a remittitur for all except $5,000.00 of the amount allowed, otherwise it is reversed and a new trial awarded.
Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
dissenting:
I think that this judgment should be reversed on the authority of S. A. L. Railway vs. Myrick .. Fla. .., 109 S. R. 192 and other cases cited therein.
Ellis, J.,
dissenting:
I think that this judgment should be reversed on the authority of S. A. L. Railway vs. Myrick .. Fla. .., 109 S. R. 192 and other cases cited therein.