KEY WEST ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JUAN M. ALCALDE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Key West Electric Company appealed a judgment for personal injuries resulting from one of its streetcars striking the plaintiff's wagon at high speed without warning signals. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the $3,000 judgment, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the damages reasonable.
The judgment was proper and should be affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the accident was caused by the defendant company's negligent operation of the streetcar, and the $3,000 damages award was not excessive given the injuries sustained.
“There is considerable evidence that the accident and injury to the plaintiff was caused by his being run down in his wagon by a car of the defendant company at a street-crossing in consequence of the car being driven at a high and dangerous speed, and that no signals of its approach were given.”
Establishes the factual basis for liability - negligent operation of the streetcar
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan M. Alcalde was struck by a streetcar operated by Key West Electric Company at a street crossing. The evidence showed the car was traveling at hig…
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 Personal Injury Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The defendant in error as plaintiff below sued the plaintiff in error as defendant below in the Circuit Court of Monroe County in an action for damages for personal injuries and recovered a verdict for $7233, which was reduced by order of the judge on motion for new trial to the sum of $3,000 by remittitur entered and judgment was rendered for the last named amount, and to have this judgment reviewed the defendant below has brought the case here by writ of-error. But one assignment of error is argued or presented here to the effect that the court below erred in not granting the motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the law or the evidence. There is considerable evidence that the accident and injury lo the plaintiff was caused by his being run down in his wagon by a car of the defendant company at a street -crossing in consequence of the car being driven at a high and dangerous speed, and that no signals of its approach were given. There was much conflict in the evidence on these issues, but the jury by their verdict have settled these conflicts adversély to the defendant company, and the Circuit Judge who presided at the trial has refused to disturb the jury’s settlement of them, and we cannot say that there was such a preponderance of evidence in the defendant’s favor on such issues, as to indicate any unfair bias or prejudice on the part of the jury in arriving at their finding.
The evidence in the case vo which the jury by their verdict seem to have given their credence is ample to sustain the finding in the plaintiff’s favor, and from thfe proofs we do not think that the -sum of $3,000, to which the judge below' reduced the verdict, and for which judgment has beeh rendered, js at all excessive for the injuries shown to have been sustained by the plaintiff. The law applicable to the facts proved also justifies such recovery. Nio error being shown the judgment of the Circuit Court in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the plaintiff in error..
Hooker and Parkiiill, JJ., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.