SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MINNIE EASON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1922-11-18
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
84 Fla. 573 Florida Supreme Court (1922)

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 affirmed a personal injury judgment, provided the plaintiff entered a remittitur for the excess amount awarded, addressing errors that were deemed harmless.


Holding

The court held that while admitting evidence of dependent children was error, it was not harmful given the verdict amount. The court also found the judgment excessive because it exceeded the jury's verdict.


Key Quotes

“This was error, but in view of the amount of the verdict, it is obvious that the error did not unduly enhance the damages awarded and it was therefore not harmful to the defendant.”

Reasoning for finding the admission of evidence about dependent children to be harmless error.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In an action for personal injuries sustained while alighting from a train, the jury returned a verdict of $900.00, but the judgment was entered for $9…

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.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries received.in alighting from defendant’s train the verdict awards $900.00 damages while the judgment is for $950.00 damages.

Among the errors assigned on writ of error is that the court erred in admitting evidence that the plaintiff had children dependent on her. This was error, but in view of the amount of the verdict, it is obvious that the error did not unduly enhance the damages awarded and it was therefore not harmful to the defendant.

Contributory negligence was not shown. No material or harmful errors appear in the transcript. The damages awarded by the verdict are not excessive, but as the amount of the judgment is in excess of the verdict a remittitur of the excess should be entered and thereupon the judgment will stand affirmed for $900.00 damages, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for the entry of a judgment in accord with the verdict.

It is so ordered.

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


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw