FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
DARTHA CARTER AND EZEKIEL M. CARTER, HER HUSBAND, DEFENDANTS 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.
In this personal injury damages case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a $15,000 judgment against Florida East Coast Railway after a new trial was ordered due to erroneous jury instructions in the first trial. The court found sufficient evidence of the railroad's negligence and that the verdict was neither excessive nor contrary to law.
The court affirmed the $15,000 judgment, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support liability, that contributory negligence did not appear as a matter of law, and that while the amount awarded exceeded the prior verdict, it was not so palpably excessive as to justify setting it aside.
“There was evidence upon which liability could lawfully be predicated; and upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances in evidence, contributory negligence does not appear as matter of law.”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing jury verdicts on liability and contributory negligence—that evidence must support liability and contributory negligence must not appear as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDartha Carter was injured and brought suit against Florida East Coast Railway for personal injuries. A prior judgment for $12,500 was reversed because…
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 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This writ of error is to a judgment for $15,000.00 damages for personal injuries. A previous judgment for $12,500.00 was reversed, because of an erroneous and apparently harmful charge given to the jury. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Carter, 67 Fla. 335, 65 South. Rep. 254. A new trial was awarded to determine the liability of the defendant as well as the recoverable damages, if any, there being evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which, under the statute, the jury might regard, if found to exist, as affecting the liability of the defendant, or as affecting merely the amount of the damages. Otherwise the new trial granted might, under Chapter 6467, Acts of 1913, have been limited to the issues relative to the recoverable damages. See Garzo v. J. H. Brophy Const. Co., 66 Fla. 607, 64 South. Rep. 234.
The issues relating to liability, contributory negligence and recoverable damages were fully and fairly submitted to the jury and determined in favor of the plaintiff. There was evidence upon which liability could lawfully be predicated; and upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances in evidence, contributory negligence does not appear as matter of law. The conflicts in the testimony-and the credibility of the witnesses have been determined by the jury, and there is nothing in the record to show the verdict to be contrary to law or to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence in finding the verdict that has been approved by the trial court, the evidence as to the circumstances of the injury being more full this time. Technical errors, if any, in giving or refusing charges, or in rulings upon proffered evidence, do not appear to have been harmful to the defendant railroad company. While the amount awarded is greater than that of the former verdict, it is not so palpably excessive as to justify an appellate court in setting aside a second verdict for the plaintiff in a case like this, where substantial damages may be allowed upon a finding of liability. See Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co. v. Ruff, decided at this term.
The judgment is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Virginia Willys Lucom (formerly Virginia Willys de Landa) v. Fay Hall Potter, 131 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1961)…r than that awarded by the regular county judge on the first trial and reversed by this court. We cannot, however, disapprove the award merely because it is higher than that awarded at the first trial. Cf. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Carter, 1915, 69 Fla. 153, 67 So. 916. It is also contended by appellant that the award ($28,000) must have been made solely by application of the minimum fee schedule of the Palm Beach County Bar Association to the stipulated value of the estate, $1,550,000, since, the app…
-
Isabell Barnwell and Woodward Barnwell v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, 73 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1917)…and where she should not have so attempted, at least without some showing that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that a passenger might attempt to so alight. In Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Carter, 67 Fla. 335, 65 South. Rep. 254, 69 Fla. 153, 67 South. Rep. 916, the declaration alleged that the train stopped “at the station of the defendant.” In Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Parker, 65 Fla. 543, 62 South. Rep. 589, the repugnant allegations were immaterial surplusage and did not affect essen…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dartha Carter and Ezekiel M. Carter, 67 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1914)
- Garzo v. J. H. Brophy Constr. Co., 66 Fla. 607 (Fla. 1914)