ATLANTA & ST. ANDREWS BAY RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
D. P. OUTLAW, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; ATLANTA & ST. ANDREWS BAY RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. W. COTTON AND E. M. COTTON, AS CO-PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF COTTON BROS., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR; ATLANTA & ST. ANDREWS BAY RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. C. J. SEAY, 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 affirmed three consolidated negligence actions against a railway company for property destroyed by fire allegedly caused by negligently operated locomotives emitting sparks and live coals at Cottondale in 1921. The court found no procedural error and upheld jury verdicts for the plaintiffs based on the same operative facts as a companion case (Welch).
The court affirmed all three judgments, finding no harmful procedural error and upholding the jury instructions as proper charges on the evidence, which was consistent with the negligence allegations pleaded.
“The negligence alleged consisted in defendant's failure to properly equip, repair and operate with due care its locomotives, as a result of which sparks and live coals were emitted from one of them and the fire transmitted and communicated thereby to property of each of the several plaintiffs igniting and destroying same.”
Establishes the operative negligence theory: failure to properly equip, repair, and operate locomotives resulting in emission of sparks causing fire damage to plaintiffs' property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 25, 1921, a fire at Cottondale in Jackson County destroyed property belonging to three separate plaintiffs. The railway company operated a lo…
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 Proximate Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
These cases were tried at the same time by one jury. They are actions by the respective plaintiffs, defendants in errpr here, against the defendant, plaintiff in error in each case, to recover the value of property of the several plaintiffs destroyed at Cottondale in Jackson County on the 25th day of March, 1921, by fire alleged to have been negligently set out by the defendant railway company. The pleadings in the three cases, with the exception of parties plaintiff, property destroyed and nonessential details, are the same. The negligence alleged consisted in defendant’s failure to properly equip, repair and operate with due care its locomotives, as a'result of which sparks and live coals were emitted from one of them and the fire transmitted and communicated thereby to property of each of the several plaintiffs igniting and destroying same. Pleas of not guilty and denying damage to plaintiffs were filed by defendant. The verdict in each case was for plaintiff. To review the judgments entered writs of error were taken.
No harmful error of procedure is made to appear. The instructions given by the trial court, made grounds of the motions for new trials, the overruling of which is assigned as error in each case, are not, in view of the negligence al•leged, amenable to the criticism that they are charges on the facts. The charges were hypotheeized upon evidence tending to prove facts alleged as constituting negligence.
The injury sustained having resulted from the same fire and the questions on these several writs of error being in all material respects the same as in that ease, the judgments are affirmed upon the authority of Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. v. Welch, 85 Fla. 203, 95 South. Rep. 570.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur.