SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CALLIE MAUD PREWITT AND F. M. PREWITT, 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.
A railroad passenger sued Seaboard Air Line Railway for injuries sustained when a train made a sudden stop, throwing her head backward over a seat. The trial court awarded $3,000 in damages, but the Florida Supreme Court found the award excessive and conditionally affirmed, requiring a remittitur of $2,000 or face reversal.
The court held that while a valid cause of action for compensatory damages was established, the $3,000 judgment was excessive. The court conditionally affirmed the judgment on the condition that plaintiffs remit $2,000, reducing the judgment to $1,000, or else the judgment would be reversed.
“A careful consideration of the evidence leads to the conclusion that while a cause of action for compensatory damages is shown, the amount of the judgment is excessive”
Establishes the court's finding that liability was properly determined but damages were unreasonably high
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCallie Maud Prewitt was traveling as a passenger on defendant's train when the train was brought to a sudden stop, causing a severe jar and impact tha…
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 Loss Of Consortium cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received while traveling as a passenger, it is alleged “that the defendant was guilty of carelessness and negligence in the premises in this, to-wit; that it caused said train to be brought to a sudden stop, thereby causing a severe jar and impact, and that by reason of said carelessness and negligence of the defendant in so stopping said train as aforesaid, the said plantiff’s head was thrown backwards over the top of the seat with great force and violence, as aforesaid, whereby the said plaintiff was painfully, seriously and permanently injured in her head, neck, limbs, back and throughout her body, and by reason of such hurting, wounding and injuring, sa3*d plaintiff, Callie Maud Prewitt, then and there became sick and disordered, and has suffered great pain and anguish, and has so suffered for a long time, to-wit: from then to this time, and the said plaintiff was thereby permanently injured, and will continue permanently to suffer pain and anguish; and the said plaintiff, Callie Maud Prewitt, was then and thereby during that' time and still is rendered incapable of performing her duties, and services by her to be done and performed, and the plaintiff, F.
M. Prewitt, was at the time of said hurting, wounding and bruising, and has ever since been and still is the husband of the said Callie Maud Prewitt, and was then and thereby and has since been deprived of the services, companionship, and wifely attention, society and aid of and consortment with said plaintiff, Callie Maud Prewitt, and that said plaintiff, F.
M. Prewitt, will likely be deprived of such services, companionship, attention, society and consortment for a long time; and plaintiffs were obliged to and did necessarily lay out divers sums of money in and about endeavoring to have the plaintiff, Oallie Maud Prewitt, cured of her injuries, wounds and disorders, as aforesaid.
The case, on a plea of not guilty, was tried before a referee, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000.00. A new trial was denied. Defendant excepted and tooh writ of error. A careful consideration of the evidence leads to the conclusion that while a cause of action for compensatory damages is shown, the amount of the judgment is excessive; it is, therefore, adjudged that if the plaintiffs below enter a remittitur of two thousand dollars, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed thirty days after the mandate is filed in the trial court. See Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 South. Rep. 714.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1922)…kin, 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, 84 South. Rep. 726; Lindsey Turpentine Co. v. Souls, 81 Fla. 339, 87 South. Rep. 782; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Prewitt, 81 Fla. 423, 88 South. Rep. 160. If the second plea on which the requested seventh charge was predicated,' sought to tender an issue of assumed risk, it was forbidden by the statute, (Sec. 4, Chap. 6521, Acts of 1913, Sec. 4974, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920), and if…
-
S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)…Frank, 76 Fla. 384, 80 South. Rep. 60; Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693, 84 South. Rep. 726; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Gaffga, 81 Fla. 268, 87 South. Rep. 922; Lindsey Turpentine Co. v. Soule. 81 Fla. 339, 87 South. Rep. 782; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Prewitt, 81 Fla. 423, 88 South. Rep. 160; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Conant, 79 Fla. 668, 84 South. Rep. 688; Empire Drug Co. v. Smith, 78 Fla. 594, 83 South. Rep. 458; Standard Growers’ Exchange v. Martin, 80 Fla. 864, 87 South. Rep. 54; Nolan v. Moore, 81 Fla. 600,…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394 (Fla. 1889)