JACKSONVILLE, TAMPA & KEY WEST RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSE HUNTER, APPELLEE
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 Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company appealed a judgment for $150 awarded to Jesse Hunter for a horse killed by the railway's train. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and properly instructed by the trial court.
The verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and the jury properly reconciled the conflicting testimony. The objection to the jury charge regarding the prima facie case was raised too late on appeal and therefore not considered.
“The evidence in the case is conflicting, but we are not prepared to say that the preponderance of the evidence is not with the plaintiff.”
Establishes that the appellate court found sufficient evidentiary support for the jury's verdict despite conflicting testimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA horse belonging to the plaintiff was killed by the defendant railway company's train near Palatka late at night. The plaintiff's evidence showed 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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Mitchell, J.
The appellee, plaintiff below, sued appellant railway company for a horse killed by defendant’s train, and recovered a judgment for $150, and the case comes before this court upon appeal from the order of the Circuit Court overruling motion for new trial.
The first error assigned is, that the verdict was contrary to law; and in support of this proposition it is insisted that the verdict was not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, and hence, that it was illegal. The evidence in the case is conflicting, but we are not prepared to say that the preponderance of the evidence is not with the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s evidence tends to show that the horse was killed through the negligence of the railway company. The accident occurred near Palatka at a late hour of the night, the moon shining at the time, though not brightly. That the horse ran on the railway track for some distance ahead of the train, and at the time could be and was seen at the distance of 250 yards. On the other hand, the evidence for the defendant tended to show that the night was dark and foggy, and that the engineer could not see more than 20 feet ahead of his engine. This conflict in the evidence it was the duty of the jury to reconcile, which they did, and found for the plaintiff, and as there was evidence to sustain their verdict, and as there is nothing to induce the belief that they were influenced by other than proper motives in arriving at their conclusion, we can see no ground for disturbing the verdict as being either against law or the evidence.
It is assigned as error that the court below erred in charging the jury that “the proof of the killing made a prima facie case for the plaintiff.” This objection to the charge is raised for the first time in the Appellate Court, and comes too late. Irvin vs. State, 19 Fla., 872; Carter vs. State, 20 Fla., 754: Southern Express Co. vs. Van Meter, 17 Fla., 783; West vs. Blackshear, 20 Fla., 457.
This disposes of all the questions raised. The killing of plaintiff’s horse by the defendant is not denied, nor is there any question as to the amount of damages awarded by the jury.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1914)…of evidence, the court will not interfere and set aside the [*596] verdict óf a jury. Tallahassee R. R. Co. v. Macon, 8 Fla. 299; Bridier v. Yulee, 9 Fla. 481; Hiding v. Florida Savings Bank, 19 Fla. 695; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 26 Fla. 308, 8 South. Rep. 450. A preponderance of the evidence means the probative weight, influence, force or power of the evidence as adduced, considered separately and collectively with reference to the issue. The deceased was a passenger on the defendant’…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Horn, 100 Fla. 1339 (Fla. 1930)…ial evidence to support the [*1342] findings of the jury upon the question at issue, the finding of the jury will not be disturbed as to that point. Standard Grower’s Exchange v. Howard, 82 Fla. 97, 89 So. R. 345; Jacksonville etc. R. Co. v. Hunter, 26 Fla. 308, 8 So. R. 450; Jacksonville etc. R. Co. v. Wellman, 26 Fla. 344, 7 So. R. 845; Logan v. State, 58 Fla. 72, 50 So. R. 536; Allen v. Lewis, 43 Fla. 301, 31 So. R. 286. The defendant pleaded, among other things, a release signed by the plaintiff on th…
Authorities Cited
- Irvin v. State, 19 Fla. 872 (Fla. 1883)
- Silas B. Carter v. State, 20 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1884)
- Theophilus West v. E. J. Blackshear & Co., 20 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1884)