FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LOUIS FREDERITZI, 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.
Florida East Coast Railway Company appealed a judgment for wrongful death damages awarded to Frederitzi for the death of his minor son struck by the railroad's train at a crossing. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that although the deceased was negligent, the evidence supported jury findings of railroad negligence that appreciably contributed to the death, and recovery was properly allowed with damages reduced proportionally under statute.
The judgment is affirmed because the evidence does not establish that the deceased's negligence was the sole proximate cause of death or that the defendant was free from fault. Although the decedent was negligent, evidence of the train's speed, obstruction of view, and other circumstances supported jury findings of appreciable railroad negligence contributing to the death. Under statute, recovery is allowed with damages reduced in proportion to the decedent's comparative fault.
“In this case the evidence does not show that the negligence of the deceased was the sole proximate, cause of his death or that the defendant was free from fault as in the cases above cited.”
Establishes the key distinction between this case and prior precedents where sole proximate causation by the deceased precluded recovery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrederitzi's minor son was killed by a train operated by Florida East Coast Railway Company at a railroad crossing. The evidence showed that the deced…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
— Frederitzi obtained a judgment for damages for the death of his minor son caused by the railroad company’s train at a crossing, and on writ of error the company contends merely “that the evidence shows that the killing of plaintiff’s son was the result of the son’s own negligence,” which would make a recovery error. See Tampa Electric Co. v. Bourquardez, 72 Fla. 161, 72 South. Rep. 668; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435, 70 South. Rep. 437; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Padgett, 71 Fla. 90, 70 South. Rep. 998; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla. 246, 44 South. Rep. 247; Live Oak P. & G. R. Co. v. Miller, 72 Fla. 8, 72 South. Rep. 283; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Barwick, 51 Fla. 304, 41 South. Rep. 70; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Smith, 53 Fla. 375, 43 South. Rep. 235.
In this case the evidence does not show that the negligence of the deceased was the sole proximate, cause of his death or that the defendant was free from fault as in the cases above cited. It appears that the decedent was negligent; but there is evidence as to the speed of the train, the obstruction of the view at or near the crossing and other circumstances from which the jury may have found negligence in operating the train that appreciably contributed to the cause of the death of the decedent; and as under the statute there may be a recovery, but the damages shall be reduced in proportion to the decedent’s fault, the verdict will not be disturbed, there being no contention that the verdict is excessive if there is any liability and the amount awarded not being patently unreasonable. Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Good, 79 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1920)…to the evidence under the issues. [*599] The amount of the award does not indicate that the jury failed to diminish the damages in proportion as the decedent’s negligence, if any, bears to the entire damage. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Frederitzi, 77 Fla. 150, 81 South. Rep. 104. This ease in some essential features is quite unlike the cases of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla. 246, 44 South. Rep. 247; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435, 70 South. Rep. 437; Seaboard Air Line Ry.…
-
Triay v. Seals, 92 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1923)…of damages will be reduced or barred according to the law applicable to the particular case. Sections 4960, 4961, 4965, Revised General Statutes of 1920. 41 Fla. 1; 138 U. S. 483, 17 C. J. 1242; 8 R. C. L. 779; 74 Fla. 307; 61 Fla. 424; 72 Fla. 161; 77 Fla. 150. In an action for injuries caused by the operation of a railroad train or a street car it is sufficient to allege ultimate facts showing that the defendant negligently committed the act that proximately caused or contributed to causing the injury,…
-
Director General of Railroads v. Fanny Into, 83 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1922)…ars, the verdict, in view of the rights of the wife and of the evidence as to deecdent’s care of his family, is not clearly excessive in amount even though the decedent’s negligence contributed to the injury. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Frederitzi, 77 Fla. 150, 81 South. Rep. 104; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Good, 79 Fla. 589, 84 South. Rep. 773; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxwrorth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 South. Rep. 338; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 45 Fla. 278, 34 South. Rep. 270. The principle an…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1915)
- The Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Smith, 53 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1907)
- Beal v. McKee (Ala. 1907)
- The Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1907)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Barwick, 51 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1906)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Padgett, 71 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1916)
- Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bourquardez, 72 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1916)
- Live Oak v. Miller, 72 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1916)