THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. W. HARRISON, 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 against a railroad company for damages to an automobile. The court found that while the railroad might have been negligent, the plaintiff's contributory negligence and an excessive damage award required a modification of the judgment.
The court held that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was evident, and the awarded damages may have been excessive. The judgment was affirmed only if the plaintiff agreed to a remittitur.
“If there was negligence on the part of the railroad company in not maintaining and keeping in good condition the road crossing where the accident occurred, the evidence shows contribuí ary negligence on the part ,of the plaintiff below.”
Establishes the court's finding of potential contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrison obtained a $325 judgment against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for damage to his automobile, which was struck by a train at a…
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 Remittitur cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, C. J.
Harrison obtained a judgment against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for $325.00 and interest, for damage to an automobile struck by a locomotive and train of the defendant corporation.
If there was negligence on the part of the railroad company in not maintaining and keeping in good condition the road crossing where the accident occurred, the evidence shows contribuí ary negligence on the part ,of the plaintiff below.
He testified that he knew that the crossing was in bad condition; that his car had previously stalled at the same point, and that a soda water truck had stalled there the day before the accident. The car was a second hand five passenger Ford. The plaintiff testified that he paid $200.00 for it, and had spent $180.00 for repairs a few days before the accident. He and other witnesses placed its value at the time of the injury at $350.00. An agent for Ford automobiles testified that the price of a new five passenger Ford car on February 21, 1918, was $345.00 F. O. B. factory. That the price of such ears was advanced $90.00 on the 22nd of February,-1918. The accident occurred June 5, 1917.
It does not appear that the damages were duly apportioned as required by the statute. A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69.
It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged that if within thirty days from the filing of the mandate in the court below, the plaintiff shall enter a remittitur of $125.00 and the interest thereon that is included in the judgment, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder; otherwise the judgment will be reversed.
Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Watson, 103 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1931)…tory negligence. Section 7051 (4964) and Section 7052 (4965) Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927; Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Watkins, supra; Germak v. Florida East Coast Railway, 95 Fla. 991, 117 So. 391; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Harrison, 84 Fla. 497, 94 So. 382; Tampa Electric Co. v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 204, 133 So. 887. The remaining assignments of error relate to certain charges given and certain charges asked for by defendant, which were refused. These assignments question the constitutionalit…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Weir, 63 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1912)