AZZALEE HARVIN AND HER HUSBAND EDWARD HARVIN
v.
W. R. KENAN, JR., AND S. M. LOFTIN, AS RECEIVERS OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, A CORPORATION; EDWARD HARVIN V. W. R. KENAN, JR., AND S. M. LOFTIN, AS RECEIVERS OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, A CORPORATION
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.
Azzalee Harvin sued a railroad company for injuries sustained when she stepped off a moving train after the porter informed her they had arrived at Daytona Beach. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment against her, holding that the railroad's duty of care does not relieve passengers of their responsibility to exercise reasonable care and confirm the train has stopped before alighting.
The court held that the railroad company was not negligent. While railroads owe a high degree of care to passengers, this duty does not relieve passengers of exercising reasonable care for their own safety. A passenger in possession of normal faculties is expected to know when a train is in motion, and announcing a station before arrival and opening doors does not constitute an invitation to alight before the train stops. The alleged custom to keep the gang plank down and door closed was insufficiently pleaded.
“A railroad company is held to a high degree of care for the safety of its passengers but this duty does not relieve the passenger of exercising a reasonable degree of care for his own safety.”
Establishes the balance of duties between railroad and passenger, limiting the railroad's liability despite high standard of care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvin was a passenger on a day coach from Delray Beach to Daytona Beach. Upon approaching Daytona Beach early in the morning darkness, the porter inf…
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
Appellant sued for injuries sustained by her while a passenger on appellee’s railroad. The lower court held her declarations bad and entered a judgment against her from which she appeals.
The basis of her action is that she took passage in a day coach from Delray Beach to Daytona Beach, arriving at her destination in the early morning while it was dark. When the train approached Daytona Beach she was aroused from sleep by the porter who informed her that Daytona Beach was the next stop. She proceeded to the vestibule to alight and found the gang plank up and the door open. Thinking the train had stopped, she stepped off and was thrown under the train and was injured seriously. She specifies negligence in the opening of the door and the raising of the gang plank, without providing a guard, before the train came to a stop. She also alleges that “ ... it was then the duty and custom of the defendant to keep the gang plank down and the vestibule door closed until the train had come to a full stop; ...”
First we consider the question of actionable negligence. No action will lie in the absence of negligence on the part of the railroad company or its agents. For the negligence to be actionable there must be a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. Sec. 768.06, F.S. 1941, F.S.A., reads:
“No person shall recover damages from a railroad company for injury to himself or his property, where the same is done by his consent, or is caused by his own negligence. If the plaintiff and the agents of the company are both at fault, the former may recover, but the amount of recovery shall be such a proportion of the entire damages sustained, as the defendant’s negligence bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant.”
*605The elements of actionable negligence were clearly enunciated by us in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Wade, 53 Fla. 620, 43 So. 775. It was held in Gayle’s Administrator v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 163 Ky. 459, 173 S. W. 1113, that it was' not negligence to announce the station before the train arrived and the opening of the doors did not constitute an invitation to alight before the train came to a stop. See Zelman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 93 N.J.L. 57, 107 Atl. 442.
A railroad company is held to a high degree of care for the safety of its passengers but this duty does not relieve the passenger of exercising a reasonable degree of care for his own safety. The passenger, in possession of his normal faculties, is expected to know when the train is in motion. It does not appear in this case that the train was operated in an unusual or careless manner.
On the claim of custom to keep the gang plank down and the door closed until the train stopped, we must hold against appellant. The meager allegation of this phase of the case falls far short of the required elements to fix liability. See 25 C.J.S., page 76.
The judgments are affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
BUFORD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McWHORTER v. Billye Goldsmith Curby, 113 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…a causal connection between such negligence and the injury for which relief is sought. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406, 20 So. 558; Hall v. Western Union Tel Co., 59 Fla. 275, 51 So. 819, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 639; and Harvin v. Kenan, 157 Fla. 603, 26 So. 2d 668. The Florida Supreme Court, in Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26, 27, said: “If an independent efficient cause intervenes between the negligence and the injury, and the original negligence does not directly contr…
-
Westbrook v. Bacskai, 103 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…egligence can arise, it is necessary that a causal relation should be shown to exist between the damage and the act alleged to have occasioned it. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 134; Harvin v. Kenan, 157 Fla. 603, 26 So. 2d 668. Arguing facts not in evidence or not warranted from the evidence is not permitted in trial courts of this state. Although counsel is allowed a broad latitude in presenting his case to the jury, he should at all times confine his arg…
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. Willis, 112 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…64, 137 P. 1047. . Gladden v. Missouri Public Service Company, Mo.1955, 277 S.W. 2d 510; Tampa Drug Co. v. Wait, Fla.1958, 103 So. 2d 603. . Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 56 Fla. 735, 48 So. 209, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 134. . Harvin v. Kenan, 157 Fla. 603, 26 So. 2d 668. . Tampa Electric Company v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 748, 190 So. 26. . Owen v. Appalachian Power Co., 1916, 78 W.Va. 596, 89 S.E. 262. . Cincinnati N. & C. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 281 Ky. 565, 136 S.W. 2d 769; Lambert v. Miller’s Adm’r,…
Authorities Cited
- Florida East Coast Railway v. Ersula J. Wade, 53 Fla. 620 (Fla. 1907)