TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
EDWARD F. LIMPUS, 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 for automobile repair costs, holding that damages should have been apportioned due to the plaintiff's employee's negligence, as required by statute.
Yes, the damages should have been apportioned according to the statute, as the plaintiff's employee was also negligent.
“The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff’s employee was negligent in backing the automobile out of a garage and across the street car track without taking appropriate care to avoid -collision with a street car that might be approaching.”
Establishes the plaintiff's employee's negligence.
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's employee negligently backed an automobile out of a garage and into the path of a street car, causing damage. The trial court awarded 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 Apportionment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
[*538] Per Curiam.
This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $416.06 as damages for the entire cost of repairs to ah automobile injured by a collision with a street car. The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff’s employee was negligent in backing the automobile out of a garage and across the street car track without taking appropriate care to avoid -collision with a street car that might be approaching. This being so, though the defendant was negligent, the damages sustained should have been apportioned as required by the statute. Sec. 4965 Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69, 58 South. Rep. 641, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 307, Ann Cas. 1914A 126; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Meacham, 77 Fla. 701, 82 South. Rep. 232.
If a remittitur is duly entered for $200.00, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder, viz: $216.06; otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1912)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Meacham, 77 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1919)