POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL W. SCOTT, 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 reviewed a judgment awarding $5,000 in damages to a pedestrian struck by a bicycle messenger employed by Postal Telegraph Cable Company. The court affirmed the jury's finding of negligence on the company's part and rejected the contributory negligence defense, but found the damages award excessive and conditioned affirmance on the plaintiff accepting a remittitur of $2,000.
The jury's finding of defendant's negligence and absence of plaintiff's contributory negligence was supported by the evidence and the common law bar to recovery for contributory negligence did not apply. However, the $5,000 judgment was excessive given the nature of the injuries, and the court would affirm only if the plaintiff accepted a remittitur of $2,000.
“The common law rule that contributory negligence bars recovery is in force in this State, it never having been modified by statute in this class of cases.”
Establishes Florida's adoption of the common law contributory negligence bar, though it would not apply here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA messenger boy employed by Postal Telegraph Cable Company was riding a bicycle while delivering a telegraphic message when he negligently propelled t…
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 Due Care cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding damages for personal injuries. The declaration alleges in effect that a messenger boy employed by the defendant company while “engaged in calling for and delivering a certain telegraphic message for defendant, carelessly and negligently propelled and ran a certain bicycle with great force and violence at and against plaintiff, thereby” injuring him as alleged. Defendant pleaded not guilty and contributory negligence. The common law rule that contributory negligence bars recovery is in force in this State, it never having been modified by statute in this class of cases. Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Fowler, 58 Fla. 362, 50 South. Rep. 680; German-American Lumber Co. v. Hannah, 60 Fla. 70, 53 South. Rep. 516; Ingram-Dekle Lumber Co. v. Geiger, 71 Fla. 390, 71 South. Rep. 552; Co-operative Sanitary Baking Co. v. Shields, 71 Fla. 110, 70 South. Rep. 934; Wauchula Mfg. & Timber Co. v. Jackson, 70 Fla. 596, 70 South. Rep. 599.
But contributory negligence does not clearly appear in this case. There is ample evidence to sustain the finding which in effect is that the defendant’s employee was negligent as alleged and that the plaintiff did not proximately and appreciably contribute to the injury he complains of. There is evidence from which it may be found that the plaintiff had gotten perhaps a third or haifway across the street or 18 or 20 feet from the sidewalks in crossing the street when he was struck by the bicycle which was going at undue speed, when there was apparently nothing to cause the collision if the rider had been in proper control of the wheel and exercised due care.
It does not appear, as against the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was careless. He testified that he looked before proceeding to cross the street, and in crossing, saw nothing to imperil his safety until the wheel was upon him; and there is other evidence that the wheel was moving rapidly.
On a consideration of the entire record, it seems clear that the assignments of error do not materially affect the right of action; but some of them, at least, may go to the amount of the verdict and judgment, which is $5,-000.00. It appears that the plaintiff’s arm was broken and that he sustained other bruises that were not so serious, though there is evidence from which more or less continued suffering may be inferred. Expenditures for treatment were small. Considering the entire record, the award appears to be excessive, making a remittitur appropriate. See Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pipkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564; Arkansas Val. Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; Devine v. City of St. Louis, 257 Mo. 470, 165 S. W. Rep. 1014; 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860.
If the plaintiff below enters a remittitur-of $2000.00, the judgment will stand affirmed; otherwise the judg ment will stand reversed on the thirtieth day after the mandate is filed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
de la Vallina v. de la Vallena, 90 Fla. 905 (Fla. 1926)…of the excess on condition that the judgment [*907] stand for the balance, otherwise a new trial will be granted. McLean v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 515; Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5.South. Rep. 7l4; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Florida Southern Ry. Co. v. Steen, 45 Fla. 313, 34 South. Rep. 571; Standard Growers’ Exch. v. Martin, 80 Fla. 864, 87 South. Rep. 54; 2 R. C. L. 278. From a study of the foregoing eases, and many others of similar import, it i…
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1922)…Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher, 63 Fla. 137, 57 South. Rep. 603; Saunders Transfer Co. v. Underwood, 77 Fla. 167, 81 South. Rep. 105; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Scott, 76 Fla. 336, 79 South. Rep. 767; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pitkin, 64 Fla. 24, 59 South. Rep. 564; Tampa Electric Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268, 87 South. Rep. 922; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693…
-
Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920)…ch in view of all the evidence appear excessive. If the plaintiff enters a remittitur of $500.00, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder; otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Frank, 76 Fla. 384; 76 Fla. 336; 77 Fla. 167. It is so ordered. Browne, C. J., and Taylor,, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ark. Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann, 130 U.S. 69 (U.S. 1889)
- Ingram-Dekle Lumber Co. v. Geiger, 71 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1916)
- Fla. Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1889)
- Co-operative Sanitary Baking Co. v. Shields, 71 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1916)
- Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Fowler, 58 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1909)
- German-American Lumber Co. v. C. P. Hannah by Next Friend, 60 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1910)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Cassie Pipkin and E. H. Pipkin, 64 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1912)
- Wauchula Mfg. & Timber Co. v. Jackson, 70 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1916)