WALKER D. HINES, U. S. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERRORR
v.
MONROE VENABLE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1921-05-19
81 Fla. 754 Florida Supreme Court (1921) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against a railroad company, finding insufficient evidence that the company's negligence caused the plaintiff's property to burn. The court emphasized that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation, which cannot be presumed.


Holding

No, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to prove that the railroad company's negligence caused the fire.


Key Quotes

“the testimony adduced in the transcript of the record does not show by direct testimony or by duly connected probative circumstances that the property was destroyed by fire that was the result of the defendant’s negligence as alleged.”

Establishes the lack of sufficient evidence for the plaintiff's claim.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A plaintiff sued a railroad company for property destroyed by fire, alleging the fire resulted from the company's negligence in failing to equip its e…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the railroad company for the loss of property destroyed by fire, in an action wherein it was alleged that as a result of the defendant’s carelessness and negligence in failing to provide its engine with proper and necessary appliances, instruments and spark arresters, that sparks and brands of fire escaped from the engine and were carried, thrown upon and ignited and burned plaintiff’s property as specifically alleged. On writ of error it appears that the testimony adduced in the transcript of the record does not show by direct testimony or by duly connected probative circumstances that the property was destroyed by fire that was the result of the defendant’s negligence as alleged. The burden of shownig affirmatively in the first instance that the fire was caused by the defendant in the operation of its train as alleged was upon the plaintiff; and' that fact cannot be presumed. Gracy v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 350, text 364, 42 South. Rep. 903. The testimony fails t'o directly connect the defendant with the setting out of the fire; and conjecture cannot supply the neeessarjr evidence. The judgment must be reversed on the authority of Florida East Coast R. Co. v. McElroy, 72 Fla. 90, 72 South. Rep. 459; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 South. Rep. 835; Payne v. McKinnon, 81 Fla. —, 88 South. Rep. 495, decided at this term.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …imony fails to directly* connect the defendant with the setting out of the fire by which it is alleged that plaintiff’s property Avas destroyed, a judgment awarding-damages to the plaintiff for thé property burned will be reversed. Hines v. Venable, 81 Fla. 754, 88 South. Rep. 703; Payne v. McKinnon, 81 Fla. 583, 88 South. Rep. 495; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 South. Rep. 835; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. McElroy, 72 Fla. 90, 72 South. Rep. 459; Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw