H. F. KNEELAND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
TAMPA NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 lower court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's declaration stated a cause of action despite containing surplusage. The case emphasizes that a declaration need not detail every fact of negligence if it sufficiently alleges acts causing injury and that they were done negligently.
Yes, the declaration stated a cause of action. While it contained surplusage, it sufficiently alleged acts causing injury and averred that these acts were negligently done.
“In actions where negligence is the basis of recovery, it is not necessary for the declaration to set out the facts constituting the negligence, but an allegation of sufficient acts causing the injury, coupled with an averment that they were negligently done, will be sufficient.”
This quote explains the legal standard for a negligence declaration, which the court found was met in this case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff in error sued the railroad company for injuries sustained while crossing the railroad's right-of-way at a grade crossing. The trial court su…
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.
Chillingworth, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff in error sued the railroad company for injuries-which he alleged he had received while attempting to cross the railroad right-of-way at a grade crossing in Brooksville, Florida.
A demurrer was sustained to the declaration. Plaintiff declined to amend and a final judgment was entered against him.
We believe it would be of no assistance to copy the declaration in this opinion. When a declaration states a cause of action, surplus allegations not eliminated by appropriate motion may be disregarded. Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656. In actions where negligence is the basis of recovery, it is not necessary for the declaration to set out the facts constituting the negligence, but an allegation of sufficient acts causing the injury, coupled with an averment that they were negligently done, will be sufficient. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Rentz, 60 Fla. 429, 54 So. 13; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Good, 79 Fla. 589, 84 So. 733.
While the declaration contains surplusage, it does state a cause of action.
Reversed. Per Curiam.- — Tlie record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Dist. Elec. Protective Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 129 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1937)…eclaration to set out specific facts constituting negligence but an allegation of sufficient acts or omissions causing injury, coupled with an averment that they were negligently done or omitted will be sufficient. Kneeland v. Tampa Northern R. Co., 94 Fla. 702, 116 So. 48; McLeod Const. Co. v. Cooper, 101 Fla. 441, 134 So. 224; Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 So. 761; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Good, 79 Fla. 589, 84 So. 733; Woodcock v. Wilcox…
-
Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011)…) (emphasis supplied). The phrase “some actual harm” does not require a precise technical level or particular threshold of injury or impairment symptom that a plaintiff must satisfy to file an action. Id.; see also Kneeland v. Tampa Northern R. Co., 94 Fla. 702, 116 So. 48, 48 (1927) (“In actions where negligence is the basis of recovery, it is not necessary for the declaration to set out the facts constituting the negligence, but an allegation of sufficient acts causing the injury, coupled with an avermen…
-
Adelaide v. Moses, 109 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1932)…d from specifically setting up his defense and may accept the issue presented by the plaintiff.” 49 C. J. 151. The amendment 'could have been stricken and the bill would have been a good pleading. 49 C. J. 84. See also, Kneeland v. Tampa N. R. Co., 94 Fla. 702, 116 So. 48; Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656. “While it (surplusage) may be properly stricken out on motion it does not render a pleading subject to a demurrer, either general or special.” 49 C. J. 86. The court committed no error in o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1922)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Rentz, 60 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1910)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Good, 79 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1920)