ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY AND HOWELL H. ABRAMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAZEL BURLISON AND RUTH MARIE ROUSE, APPELLEES
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.
A railroad appeals a jury verdict finding it negligent for failing to install recommended signal lights at a grade crossing where appellees were injured. The court affirmed, holding that evidence of noncompliance with industry safety standards is admissible to support a negligence finding, though such noncompliance is not negligence per se.
Evidence of noncompliance with generally recognized industry safety rules is admissible and sufficient to support a jury finding of negligence, though such noncompliance does not constitute negligence per se. The jury may, but need not, find negligence based on failure to follow recognized safety standards.
[1] Evidence of noncompliance with generally recognized industry safety rules may be considered by a jury as evidence of negligence.
[2] Failure to conform to recommended practices of an industry safety council or committee is not negligence per se, but can be considered by the jury.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Evidence of noncompliance can be considered by the jury which may, but need not, find negligence as a result of the failure to follow a generally recognized safety rule.”
Establishes the court's holding that evidence of industry standard noncompliance is admissible for jury consideration but does not establish negligence per se.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn accident occurred at a railroad highway grade crossing with three westbound traffic lanes. The Association of American Railroads had issued a bulle…
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.
Appellant railroad seeks reversal of an adverse jury verdict in an action for damages sustained by appellees in a railroad crossing accident.
Appellant has raised a number of questions in respect of which it contends that error was committed in the trial court. Perhaps the most prominent issue raised rests on appellant’s contention that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find that the defendant railroad was negligent. We do not agree. Evidence was ad*281duced at the trial which would support a finding that the appellant had failed to observe signalization procedures conforming to the recommended practices for railroad highway grade crossing protection adopted by the Association of American Railroads. Evidence showed that there were three westbound traffic lanes approaching the railroad crossing where the accident occurred. Also in evidence was a bulletin of the Crossing Protection Subcommittee of the American Association of Railroads which set out the latest recommended practices for protection at railroad highway grade crossings. This bulletin recommends that a signal light cantilevered over the center lane be used when there are three or more lanes of traffic.
The evidence adduced concerning recommended signalization and defendant’s failure to provide the recommended signalization is, standing alone, sufficient evidence upon which the jury’s finding of negligence can rest. We do not hold that failure to conform one’s own practices with those generally recognized by an industry safety council or committee is negligence per se. We hold merely that evidence of noncompliance can be considered by the jury which may, but need not, find negligence as a result of the failure to follow a generally recognized safety rule.
This court has previously held that violation of safety rules was admissible in evidence to show what a reasonable and prudent person might provide, Scott v. Midyette-Moor, Inc., 221 So.2d 178 (Fla.App.1969); Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 (Fla.App.1967).
We can assume that in promulgating the safety rule in question, the American Association of Railroads consulted with leading experts in the field of railroad highway crossings and garnered from their facts and recommendations an acceptable standard of conduct tending to preserve the safety of the highway using public, evolving standards with which an operating railroad could conform without unduly restricting its operational or fiscal capacities.
We have considered the remainder of the questions raised by appellant and find them to be substantially without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.
WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Collin R. Hammock, 489 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…evidence of violation of industry standards is admissible as non-conclusive evidence of negligence. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. White, 369 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also: St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Burlison, 262 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Clements v. Boca Aviation, Inc., 444 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983); Reese v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 360 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Theref…
-
ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. & Robert Martin v. White, 369 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…industry standard referred to in the court’s instruction recommended as mandatory the placement of railroad-highway crossing signs (crossbuck) at all crossings.1 [*1011] In our earlier opinion in St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Burlison, 262 So. 2d 280 (Fla.App.1972), cert. den. 266 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1972), this Court considered and rejected the railroad’s argument regarding the admissibility of industry standards, stating: “The evidence adduced concerning recommended signalization and defendant’s…1 / 2
-
Williams v. Seaboard Airline R.R. Co., 268 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…en installed in accord with the traffic code, plaintiff would have been alerted to the onrushing train, no matter how fast it was approaching. See also St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company and Howell H. Abrams v. Burlison and Rouse, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 280. Second, I further note that Chapter 40, § 40-2 (1962), West Palm Beach Municipal Ordinance, relating to the speed of trains and in effect at the time of the accident, established the lawful speed limit for trains over the crossing at 30 miles per…
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
- Alford v. Meyer, 201 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Leola Scott v. Midyette-Moor, Inc., 221 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)