ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. A. TURMAN, 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 personal injury judgment because the trial court improperly excluded a portion of a letter written by the plaintiff. The excluded portion stated the plaintiff's expectation of receiving $2,000.00 for damages, which the court found relevant to the plaintiff's assessment of his own damages.
No, the exclusion was improper. The statement was part of a letter detailing injuries and their value, not an offer to compromise, and should have been admitted in its entirety. Yes, the exclusion was harmful to the defendant, especially in light of the substantial damages awarded.
“the left side of my face and both legs were badly burned”
Part of the letter admitted into evidence, describing the plaintiff's injuries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, W. A. Turman, sued the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for personal injuries. At trial, the court admitted a letter from Turman to…
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 Admissions By A Party Opponent cases and more on FLexlaw
[*286] Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $10,000.00 damages for personal injuries. At the trial the court admitted in evidence a letter relative to the injury, written by Turman to the defendant’s law agent, in which the plaintiff wrote: “the left side of my face and both legs were badly burned,” and “I was earning $1.65 per day,” but excluded the words “I expect the railroad to pay me $2,000.00 for my damages.”
It appears from the letter that it was not an offer to accept a reduced amount as a compromise, but a statement of the injuries received and the value thereof. The letter should have been admitted as an entirety.
In view of the damages awarded, the exclusion of the statement of the plaintiff as to the damages sustained was harmful to the defendant. On another trial, if it clearly appears that' the Federal law is applicable, the charges given will be framed to conform to the controlling law.
Judgment reversed for a new trial.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1933)…utional has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that such Act is in conflict with s'ome designated provision of the State or Federal Constitution. See Board of Cmm’rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. v. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line, 80 Fla. 252, 86 South. Rep. 199; Neisel v. Moran, 80 Fla. 98, 85 South. Rep. 346. [*252] The statute should be so construed, if fairly possible, as to avoid not only the, conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts' upon that score. Burr v. Florida East Coast R. C…
-
State v. Knowles, 402 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1981)…nstitutionality of Retroactive Legislation, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 692 (1960). . Hochman, supra note 8, at 696-97. . The strength of a tort recovery in this weighing process was identified in Board of Comm’rs v. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line, 80 Fla. 252, 264, 86 So. 199, 204 (1920), rev’d, 258 U.S. 338, 42 S.Ct. 325, 66 L.Ed. 647 (1922). . See Village of El Portal v. City of Miami Shores, 362 So. 2d 275 (Fla.1978). . Strong policy reasons support the state’s desire to immunize its employees from personal liabilit…
-
Anders v. Nicholson, 111 Fla. 849 (Fla. 1933)…ed that the prohibition contained in the above organic laws applies to states and municipalities as well as to individuals. See Woodruff v. Trappnal, 13 Law. Ed. 383. In Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District v. Forbes, 80 Fla. 252, 86 Sou. 199, we said: [*856] 193, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 763; Mexicali Nat. Ry. Co. v. Mussette, 86 Tex. 708, 26 S. W. Rep. 1075; 24 L. R. A 642; 12 C. J. p. 1053, Secs. 690, 691; 6 R. C. L. p. 326, Sec. 316.” [*855] “It is also settled that constitutional provisions…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence