ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
H. T. SWATTS AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF G. C. SWATTS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing, upholding a jury verdict for the plaintiff. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the deceased flagman was not negligent, despite the railroad's argument that he violated orders.
No, the jury verdict is upheld because there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the flagman was not negligent, and the jury's determination of the evidence's probative force should not be disturbed.
“In a petition for rehearing it is suggested that the court failed to give due weight to the uncontradicted testimony of the conductor of the train that prior to the accident, the conductor instructed the deceased flagman to go to the rear of the caboose, some sixty feet distant therefrom, and flag a street crossing to prevent persons from being injured by the movement of the train, the contention being that the deceased was negligent and should not recover under the statute since he violated the order given him and was at the end of the caboose when he was killed, when he should have been sixty feet away in a place of safety.”
Summarizes the railroad's argument on rehearing regarding the flagman's alleged negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe deceased, a flagman, was killed when the caboose he was working on was suddenly moved backward without notice. The railroad argued the flagman was…
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 Negligence Per Se cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing.
Per Curiam.—In
In a petition for rehearing it is suggested that the court failed to give due weight to the uncontradicted testimony of the conductor of the train that prior to the accident, the conductor instructed the deceased flagman to go to the rear of the caboose, some sixty feet distant therefrom, and flag a street crossing to prevent persons from being injured by the movement of the train, the contention being that the deceased was negligent and should not recover under the statute since he violated the order given him and was at the end of the caboose when he was killed, when he should have been sixty feet away in a place of safety.
Counsel overlook the fact that there is also uncontradicted evidence that the deceased was at the time of the injury actually working on the bumper on the end of the caboose trying to adjust it with his hands, with a flag in his hand, which was apparently in the line of his duty as flagman, and that the injury was caused by the undue violence with which the caboose was suddenly moved backward when no notice thereof was given to anyone who might have been at the end of the caboose. The evidence as to the presence of the flagman at the end of the caboose does not indicate negligence on his part. The jury settled the questions of the probative force of the evidence, and as there is testimony to sustain the finding, and nothing to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the verdict will not be set aside as being contrary to the evidence.
Rehearing denied.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell/ Hocker, er and Whitfield, J. J., concur.