FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
NILS JOHNSON, 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 reversed a judgment in a negligence case involving a railroad passenger injured by falling baggage, holding that statutory presumptions favoring railroads apply only to injuries caused by operation of locomotives and similar machinery, not to injuries on baggage platforms.
The statutory presumptions and special negligence rules for railroads must be confined strictly to injuries arising from the operation of railroads and their machinery. These presumptions do not apply to injuries caused by defective conditions on baggage platforms or other non-operational aspects of railroad business.
“these discriminatory statutes must be confined strictly to the operation of the railroad, in so far as it differs from other businesses in the particular dangers involved”
Establishes the narrow scope of railroad negligence statutes, limited to operational dangers unique to railroads
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a passenger on the Florida East Coast Railway, was injured when a trunk fell on him while he was on the railway's platform looking for …
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.
Per Curiam.
This is the second appearance here of this case, see Johnson v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 66 Fla. 415, 63 South. Rep. 713, where we sustained a demurrer to a plea interposed by the railway company.
The action is based upon an alleged negligence of the defendant company, in so carelessly piling up the trunks on its platform as to cause one to fall upon the plaintiff while he was there rightfully as a passenger looking for his own baggage.
The only assignments of error we deem necessary to discuss are based upon the court’s submitting to the jury the statutory presumption against the railway company, and making contributory negligence of the plaintiff but a partial defense. That these assignments are well taken, we think, is settled by our opinion in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121, 52 South. Rep. 712.
We there held that these discriminatory statutes must 'be confined strictly to the operation of the railroad, in so far as it differs from other businesses in the particular dangers involved. We refused there to apply the statutes to an injury caused by a defective floor in the waiting room, and must also refuse to' apply the statutes to an injury done on the baggage platform.
It is not altogether clear what the statute means in changing the ordinary burden of proof so as to make the harsher rule applicable to all “damage done by any person in the employ or service of such company/’ but in view of the constitutional limitations upon legislation, we are of the opinion that we must apply the maxim nosdtur a sociis and construe the words with reference to what precedes, and therefore hold that the employment or service mentioned is confined to that of running the locomotives, cars or similar machinery.
We find no such variance between pleading and proof as to call for comment.
The judgment is reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McWHORTER v. Billye Goldsmith Curby, 113 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…gation arose out of a collision between two automobiles. Therefore, the Presumption and Comparative Negligence Statutes are not involved. See Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Rentz & Little, 60 Fla. 449, 54 So. 20; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Johnson, 70 Fla. 422, 70 So. 397; and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Webb, 112 Fla. 449, 150 So. 741. A study of the complete record convinces this court that the lower court was correct in sustaining the motion of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to dismiss the…
-
Tampa Elec. Co. v. Lottie Fleischaker, 152 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1943)…121, 52 So. 712; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Rentz, 60 Fla. 449, 54 So. 20; Taylor v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 61 Fla. 307, 54 [*705] So. 452; Loftin v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 61 Fla. 292, 54 So. 959; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 70 Fla. 422, 70 So. 397; Clark v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 141 Fla. 155, 192 So. 621; Cline v. Powell, 141 Fla. 119, 192 So. 628; Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, 142 Fla. 27, 194 So. 353. Other cited cases will be subsequently considered. It is conten…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. McCormick, 59 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1910)
- Nils Johnson v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 66 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1913)