J. G. HOLTZCLAW, AS RECEIVER OF PENSACOLA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
H. C. FLOWERS, 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 personal injury judgment against an electric company receiver, finding the damages excessive given the evidence of contributory negligence and statutory requirements.
The court held that the damages were not duly apportioned as required by statute, given the evidence of contributory negligence. The judgment was conditionally affirmed.
“Conceding that negligence of the defendant below was not negative, the evidence clearly indicates contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff below; and in view of the injuries shown, it does not appear that the damages were duly apportioned as required by the statute.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for potentially reducing the judgment, citing contributory negligence and improper damage apportionment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Flowers, was awarded $500.00 plus interest against the receiver of the Pensacola Electric Company for personal injuries sustained when …
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
Per Curiam.
Flowers obtained a judgment for $500.00 and interest as damages against the receiver of the electric company for personal injuries received by being struck by a street car. Conceding that negligence of the defendant below was not negative, the evidence clearly indicates contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff below; and in view of the injuries shown, it does not appear that the damages were duly apportioned as required by the statute. It is therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged that if within thirty days from the filing of the mandate in the court below, the plaintiff below shall enter a remittitur of $200.00 and the interest thereon that is included in the judgment, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder. Otherwise the judgment will stand reversed.
It is so ordered.
Browne, C. J. and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.