ROBBIE LAWSON MILLER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 motorcycle rider struck a train at a railroad-roadway intersection and sued the railroad for negligence. The trial court instructed the jury that no law required the railroad to install gates, effectively removing the jury's ability to determine whether the railroad breached its duty of care by failing to install them. The appellate court reversed, holding that the absence of a statutory requirement does not preclude a finding of negligence as a matter of law.
The court held that while evidence of breach of a statutory duty may support a negligence finding, the converse is not true: the absence of a statutory requirement does not preclude a finding of negligence as a matter of law. The trial court's instruction improperly removed from the jury its prerogative to determine whether the railroad breached its duty of care.
[1] A jury determines the standard of care and whether a defendant breached its duty in a negligence case, which are questions of fact, not law.
[2] A jury instruction stating the absence of a statutory requirement for safety measures does not preclude a finding of negligence based on a common law duty of care.
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“It is a question of fact whether a defendant breached its duty, not a question of law.”
Establishes that breach of duty determination must be submitted to the jury as a factual question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Miller was riding his motorcycle on a public street when it collided with a train crossing the roadway at the Orange Avenue crossing. Variou…
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 Standard Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
KIRKWOOD, L.R., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury case. Appellant was riding his motorcycle on a public street and ran into a train as it crossed the roadway. Although there were various warning devices present and working there were no gates to prevent appellant and other motorists from entering into the railroad-roadway intersection. It was appellant’s theory of liability that the defendant breached its duty to warn by failing to have gates. The standard of care, along with the other elements in a negligence case, is a matter to be pleaded and proved to a jury. It is a question of fact whether-a defendant breached its duty, not a question of law.
The court in its jury instructions told the jury:
The Court instructs you that as of August 1, 1975, there is no law of any Federal, State, County, or City agency requiring the Appellee to install and maintain gates at the Orange Avenue crossing.
This instruction has the effect of removing from the jury some of its authority to determine the issue of negligence. It pre-empts the jury’s prerogative. While it is proper to give an instruction regarding the breach of a statutory duty as being evidence of negligence, the converse is not true. DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973). That is, just because no legislative body has mandated the construction of gates does not mean the railway company was not obligated to construct the gates in order to meet its burden to protect motorists from being struck by its trains. Because the erroneous instruction could have led to an unjust verdict we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Louallen, 479 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…the court to instruct the jury that they could determine the reasonableness of the warning devices employed by appellant at its railroad crossing.1 Affirmed. SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . See Miller v. Florida East Coast Rwy. Co., 477 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).…
Authorities Cited
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)