ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
GORDON L. GORNTO, 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 reversed a jury verdict awarding damages to a motorist injured in a collision with a railroad train at a highway crossing, holding that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable prudence when attempting to cross in front of a rapidly approaching train that was visible from a considerable distance.
The court held that under the facts proved, the plaintiff cannot recover because the evidence affirmatively showed that he failed to exercise the degree of prudence which the known risks required and negligently attempted to pass over the crossing in front of a rapidly approaching train.
“where the evidence affirmatively shows that the person sustaining the damages alleged failed to exercise the degree of prudence which the known risks require, but negligently attempted to pass over a crossing in frpnt of a rapidly approaching train, there can be no recovery.”
Establishes the legal rule that plaintiffs cannot recover for injuries sustained when they negligently attempt to cross in front of an approaching train
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA motorist driving his own automobile collided with a train operated by the defendant railroad company at a public highway crossing. The collision occ…
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 Property Damage cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This is. an action to recover from the defendant railroad company damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of a collision between an automobile, owned and driven by plaintiff, and a train, owned and operated by defendant. The collision occurred at a crossing of a public highway and a track of defendant’s line of railroad. The damages alleged are the destruction of plaintiff’s automobile and personal injury sustained by him, with expenses incident to treatment by a physician for such injury. Pleas of not guilty and of contributory negligence were interposed and upon the issues made the case was tried. The verdict was for plaintiff for $1,200, but upon motion for new trial and in compliance with the court’s order there was a remittitur of $400, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Upon consideration of the assignments of error we have reached the conclusion that under the facts proved the case is within the rule announced in cases of this kind that where the evidence affirmatively shows that the person sustaining the damages alleged failed to exercise the degree of prudence which the known risks require, but negligently attempted to pass over a crossing in frpnt of a rapidly approaching train, there can be no recovery.
The accident occurred in the day time. It was a prominent and frequently used crossing. The plaintiff, who was driving the car, was familiar with the crossing. He was, so far as the evidence discloses, in possession of his normal senses. Upon the question of whether the whistle was blown or the bell rung or other signal given by the train on its approach, there is conflict in the evidence. But from, the evidence, including photographs of the crossing and its environs, contained in the record, it appears that for some distance before reaching the crossing the view from the highway in the direction from which the train was coming was unobstructed, so that its approach was obvious to one exercising his normal faculties of sight and hearing.
The judgment is reversed upon authority of Egley v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 84 Fla. 147, 93 South. Rep. 170; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Padgett, 71 Fla. 90, 70 South. Rep. 998; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435, 70 South. Rep. 437; Bradley v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 288 Fed. 484.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Teeeell, J., concur. Tayloe, C. J., and Ellis and Bbowne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. Gary, 146 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1941)…ged was proximately caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff or his agent driving the truck, there can be no recovery. The mere rapid speed of the train would not alter this well settled rule of law. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gornto, 89 Fla. 97, 103 So. 117; Covington v. Seaboard Air Line Co., supra; Powell v. Jackson Grain Co., supra. See, also, notes in 56 A. L. R. 647. Nor does it appear that the defendant’s showing by positive testimony that its agents and employees used all ordinary…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 104 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1932)…ing conditions and circumstances, he is negligent so as to prevent recovery of damages from the railroad company for his injury or death, by being struck by the train, Germak v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 991, 117 So. 391; A. C. L. Ry. Co. v. Gornto, 89 Fla. 97, 103 So. 117; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171, 117 So. 842; S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. Myrick, 91 Fla. 918, 109 So. 193; Egley v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 84 Fla. 147, 93 So. 170; Covington v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 99 Fla. 1102, 128 So. 426; unless some apprec…
-
Martin v. Rivers, 72 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1954)…and in doing so, was the sole cause of the accident.” (Emphasis supplied.) This principle has been followed in numerous cases by this Court and notably in the cases of Powell v. Gary, 146 Fla. 334, 200 So. 854; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gornto, 89 Fla. 97, 103 So. 117; Egley v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 84 Fla. 147, 93 So. 170; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Barwick, 51 Fla. 304, 41 So. 70. With reference to appellee’s contention above noted, there was ■ nothing ■ to submit to the jury. The evidence of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1915)
- Egley v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 84 Fla. 147 (Fla. 1922)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Padgett, 71 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1916)