Common Carrier Duty Of Care

53 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp.
  621 F.2d 1371· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 104×
  The court held that a foreign state's removal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) removes the entire action against all defendants, not just the foreign state, rendering a dismissal of only the foreign state defendant non-final and unappealable.
• Ellison v. Johnson Anderson
  74 So. 2d 680· Fla.· 1954-09-24 ·cited 100×
  A passenger injured in a jitney bus collision sued the bus owner for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the speed of the bus and the driver's failure to avoid a collision despite an obscured
• Montgomery v. Va. Stage Lines, Inc.
  191 F.2d 770· D.C. Cir.· 1951-06-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to give specific jury instructions regarding the carrier's duty to safely stow baggage, even if the plaintiff's requested instructions were not perfectly framed.
• Yost v. Miami Transit Co.
  66 So. 2d 214· Fla.· 1953-07-10 ·cited 55×
  A passenger injured in a collision between a bus and another vehicle sued the transit company. The trial court entered summary judgment for the bus company, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the bus driver's negligence that
• Whitman v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc.
  218 So. 2d 213· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-01-21 ·cited 44×
  Harry Whitman appealed a judgment entered notwithstanding a jury verdict in a wrongful death and personal injury action against a common carrier (Red Top Sedan Service) and its driver (William DiLenge) for injuries sustained in a limousine collision. The Florida District Court of
• Blackman v. Miami Transit Co.
  125 So. 2d 128· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-12-08 ·cited 40×
  An eight-year-old boy sued Miami Transit Company for injuries sustained when he fell and struck his head during a sudden bus stop. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that testimony that the bus was going "fast" or "fast
• Jacksonville Coach Co. v. Rivers
  144 So. 2d 308· Fla.· 1962-07-13 ·cited 28×
  A bus passenger sued Jacksonville Coach Company for injuries sustained when she was thrown from her seat during a sudden bus stop. The Florida Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's evidence of a sudden stop and fast speed, without proof of what caused the stop or how the driver
• Kasanof v. Embry-Riddle Co.
  157 Fla. 677· Fla.· 1946-07-02 ·cited 26×
  This case involves a wrongful death claim arising from a fatal airplane crash during pilot training. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but permitted amendment to cure defects in the pleading.
• McCORMICK Shipping Corp. v. Warner
  129 So. 2d 448· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-08 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed a final judgment against the appellant shipping corporation, which was based on a jury verdict for injuries sustained by a passenger who fell from a bunk ladder.
• Coaster Amusement Co. v. Flo Smith
  141 Fla. 845· Fla.· 1940-02-20 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for a minor passenger injured when she was thrown from a roller coaster that performed an unusual lunge and sway. The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to establish a prima facie case of negligence despite the
• Thomason v. Miami Transit Co.
  100 So. 2d 620· Fla.· 1958-02-05 ·cited 22×
  Ethel Thomason, a passenger on a Miami Transit Company bus, was injured when folding doors allegedly slammed shut on her leg. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the bus company, finding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on contributory negligen
• City CAB Co. OF Orlando, Inc. v. Green
  308 So. 2d 540· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-02-28 ·cited 18×
  A passenger injured when a taxi made a sudden, unexplained stop sued the cab company for negligence. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for directed verdict and a jury awarded the plaintiff $5,000. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to pres
• SUE v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  279 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1960-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the scope of evidence regarding prior rock-throwing incidents and in refusing to enforce a subpoena duces tecum.
• Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors
  761 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of a formal default judgment against defaulting parties did not divest the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act correctly mandates non-jury trials in suits against foreign states.
• Swilley v. Econ. Cab Co. of Jacksonville
  46 So.2d 173· Fla.· 1950-05-09 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a passenger sued a taxicab company after being injured by another vehicle while the taxicab was stopped for a flat tire. The court held that while a carrier owes a high duty of care to an intoxicated passenger, this duty does not ma
• E. Airlines, Inc. v. Dixon
  310 So. 2d 336· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-03-25 ·cited 13×
  A lessor is not liable for injuries to third parties caused by defects in premises that are in good condition when leased, when the lessee is in possession, occupancy, and control of those premises.
• Robinson v. Smith
  735 F.2d 186· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a jury issue was created regarding whether the bill of lading effectively limited the carrier's liability, and that the district court erred in ruling otherwise as a matter of law.
• Werndli v. The Greyhound Corp.
  365 So. 2d 177· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-11-17 ·cited 12×
  Judy Werndli sued Greyhound for injuries sustained when she was attacked near a darkened, locked bus terminal in Fort Myers after arriving at 4:15 a.m. The Florida appellate court held that Greyhound, as a common carrier, had a duty to warn passengers at the time of ticket purcha
• Jacobs v. Harlem CAB, Inc.
  183 So. 2d 552· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-03-01 ·cited 12×
  Jacobs, an intoxicated taxi passenger, was thrown from a moving cab through a locked rear door while rounding a corner. The trial jury awarded him $6,500, but the trial judge granted the defendant's post-verdict motion for directed verdict. The appellate court reversed, holding t
• City OF Coral Gables & City of Coral Gables v. Patty
  162 So. 2d 530· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-03-17 ·cited 11×
  A sudden, violent stop of a bus constituting extraordinary violence not incidental to ordinary travel, where multiple passengers fall and the driver offers no explanation, presents a jury question on negligence rather than grounds for directed verdict.
• Williams v. Trans World Airlines
  509 F.2d 942· 2d Cir.· 1975-01-10 ·cited 10×
  An air carrier is authorized to refuse transportation to a passenger if, in its opinion, such transportation would or might be inimical to safety of flight, and this refusal is not subject to claims of unjust discrimination if properly exercised under the statute.
• Reitan v. Travelers Indem. Co.
  267 F.2d 66· 7th Cir.· 1959-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The judgment is affirmed because the plaintiff's contributory negligence was as great or greater than the bus company's negligence, as a matter of law.
• Hershel Krasnow v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc.
  228 F.2d 326· 2d Cir.· 1955-12-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the exclusion of an airline rule and the failure to charge a high degree of care were not prejudicial errors under New York law.
• Whiteside v. S. Bus Lines, Inc.
  177 F.2d 949· 6th Cir.· 1949-11-23 ·cited 10×
  A bus company's regulation enforcing racial segregation on an interstate bus, even if sanctioned by local custom or law, constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce and provides no immunity for damages resulting from its enforcement.
• Edwards v. Jacksonville Coach Co.
  88 So. 2d 543· Fla.· 1956-06-13 ·cited 9×
  A 67-year-old woman with a broken arm was injured alighting from a bus when the driver ordered her to use the rear door instead of the open front door. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of her complaint, holding that a common carrier owes a heightened duty of care
• Loketch v. Cap. Transit Co.
  248 F.2d 609· D.C. Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 8×
  A directed verdict for a common carrier is improper if the evidence, even if presented by the plaintiff, does not conclusively negate the carrier's negligence, leaving questions for the jury.
• Loc-Wood Boat & Motors, Inc. v. Darwin F. Rockwell
  245 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact regarding the visibility of the storm and the petitioner's negligence were not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the decree holding the boat owner liable.
• RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co. v. Masilotti
  190 F.2d 668· 5th Cir.· 1951-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding evidence sufficiency, jury instructions, or striking a defense, and that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence.
• Meyonberg v. Pa. R. Co.
  165 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1947-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court should affirm the District Court's judgment because the defendant had no notice of any danger from the card players' activities.
• Schultz v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  901 F.2d 621· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence of extreme turbulence was too thin to support a verdict, and the trial court correctly granted a directed verdict.
• Wichita Transp. Corp. v. Braly
  150 F.2d 315· 10th Cir.· 1945-07-02 ·cited 6×
  A common carrier owes a high degree of care to passengers, and a sudden, violent stop can infer negligence, shifting the burden to the carrier to prove the emergency was not negligently created.
• Rookard v. Mexicoach
  680 F.2d 1257· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that triable issues of material fact exist regarding Mexicoach's duty to warn and potential affirmative misrepresentation, precluding summary judgment.
• ACE CAB Co. v. Garcia
  140 So. 2d 338· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-04-17 ·cited 5×
  In this automobile accident case, a jury returned a $50,000 verdict against a taxi cab driver and owner for injuries to a passenger. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging jury misconduct when jurors viewed the accident scene without cou
• Nadeau v. Costley
  634 So. 2d 649· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-01-12 ·cited 4×
  Carol Nadeau appeals a summary judgment dismissing her claims against cruise line Carnival and Captain Los arising from a sexual assault by crew member Costley in her cabin. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed as to Carnival on breach of contract and vicarious liability
• Benno P. Ludwig v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  524 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the decedent was not covered by the insurance policy because he was not 'in or upon' a public conveyance at the time of his death.
• Stiles v. Gove
  345 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction, nor in its instructions on the duty of care for common carriers, nor in allowing an amendment to conform to the evidence, nor in refusing requested instructions.
• E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Joan A
  324 F.2d 38· 5th Cir.· 1963-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury charge, when read in context, adequately explained the carrier's duty of care regarding passenger safety during air turbulence, and that repeated references to the high degree of care were not unwarranted.
• Mrs. Fannie Lazarus v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  292 F.2d 748· D.C. Cir.· 1961-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a directed verdict for the defendant was reversible error, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to infer negligence or establish a duty to warn.
• Beers v. Diamond Cabs, Inc.
  104 So. 2d 388· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-07-11 ·cited 4×
  In this negligence action involving a common carrier taxi cab, the court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant and remanded for a new trial, holding that the passenger-plaintiff established a prima facie case of slight negligence against the cab driver who entered an unco
• Cole v. Cap. Transit Co.
  195 F.2d 568· D.C. Cir.· 1952-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur created a jury question regarding the streetcar's negligent operation.
• Pager v. Pa. R. Co.
  165 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1947-12-31 ·cited 4×
  A common carrier owes passengers the highest degree of care to protect them from injuries, including those caused by crowds.
• Callaway v. Hart
  146 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1944-11-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the evidence did not support a verdict for the plaintiff, as there was no showing of carrier fault and the plaintiff's own actions likely caused his injury.
• Shantel Kimberly Emmitt v. First Transit, Inc.
  300 So. 3d 225· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The trial court properly excluded a medical record statement where the defendant failed to establish its admissibility under the correct hearsay exception at trial, and the defendant later took an inconsistent position by insisting the jury be told the fall was not caused by a jo
• In re Air Crash Near Cali
  985 F. Supp. 1106· S.D. Fla.· 1997-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the pilots' actions, particularly descending from an off-course position in mountainous terrain, constituted willful misconduct under the Warsaw Convention, and that these actions were a proximate cause of the crash.
• Suarez v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  498 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1974-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that even if the district court erred in instructing the jury on the standard of care, the error was harmless because the jury's verdict indicated they likely accepted the defendant's version of the facts. Additionally, the record supported a contributory negligenc
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Adams
  292 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant railroad failed to conclusively exculpate itself from negligence, and thus the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or a new trial.
• Anne H. Woolf and Donald Woolf v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  443 F.2d 841· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-04
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against TWA for a rough landing.
• Wood v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  404 F.2d 162· 10th Cir.· 1968-11-26
  The court affirmed the dismissal of claims for tortious interference with a body and negligent failure to identify the deceased, but reversed the dismissal of the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding it was prematurely decided.
• Maultsby v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  188 So. 2d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-07-05
  A Pullman porter employed by the Pullman Company sued Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for head injuries sustained while working aboard a railroad train. The court held that the porter was not a passenger of the railroad but rather an employee of the Pullman Company in a special cont
• D. C. Transit Sys., Inc. v. Garman
  301 F.2d 568· D.C. Cir.· 1962-03-29
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying judgment N.O.V. or exoneration, as the jury's findings supported judgments against the appellants and precluded indemnity claims due to the absence of comparative negligence.