SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
P. P. CULBREATH, 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.
In this negligence action arising from a train-automobile collision, the jury awarded the plaintiff $500 in damages despite undisputed actual damages of $700. The Florida Supreme Court found the jury had properly considered the plaintiff's comparative negligence in reducing the award, but determined the verdict was still excessive given the evidence showing the plaintiff's negligence was the primary contributing cause of the injury.
The court held that while the jury properly has the authority to determine the amount of damages to reduce for a plaintiff's negligence, and verdicts should be sustained unless clearly wrong, in this case the evidence clearly showed the plaintiff's negligence constituted the very largely the contributing cause of the injury, making the $500 verdict excessive. The court determined the judgment should not exceed $350.
“It appears from the amount of recovery named in the verdict that the jury took into consideration to some extent the relative degree of negligence contributed by each party toward the injury and decreased the amount of the damages proven according to what the jury conceived to be the contribution of negligence on the part of the plaintiff.”
Establishes that the jury properly considered comparative negligence in reducing the damage award from $700 to $500.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's automobile collided with defendant railroad's train. The undisputed actual damages to the automobile were $700 (the difference between its…
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 Suit For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This was a suit for damages accruing to plaintiff in the court below by reason of a train operated by defendant in the court below coming into collision with plaintiff’s automobile. The undisputed damages caused to plaintiff by the collision was the difference between the value of his automobile immediately before the accident and the value of same automobile immediately after the accident, which was $700.00.
The trial resulted in a verdict and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $500.00.
The evidence was conflicting. The record discloses evidence to show that the plaintiff was in some degree negligent and that his negligence contributed to the injury. There is also evidence to sustain the allegations of negligence contained in the declaration and to afford proof that the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the declaration was when aided by the negligence indulged in by the plaintiff'the proximate cause of the injury.
It appears from the amount of recovery named in the verdict that the jury took into consideration to some extent the relative degree of negligence contributed by each party. toward the injury and decreased the amount of the damages proven according to what the jury conceived to be the contribution of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. We conceive it to be the province of the jury to determine the amount to be deducted from the damage proven on account of a plaintiff’s negligence and unless it appears that the conclusion reached by the jury is clearly wrong, or that the verdict was influenced by something outside of the evidence, a verdict so reached by a jury should be sustained. In this case after a very careful consideration of the evidence we are of the opinion that the evidence clearly shows that the negligence of the plaintiff constituted very largely the contributing cause of the injury and to such an extent that had the verdict been entirely justified by the record. It appears to us that the judgment is excessive and that under the conditions as disclosed by the record it should not have been for more than three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00).
If within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the trial court the plaintiff will enter a remittitur of $150.00 of the amount, the judgment will stand affirmed for $350.00, otherwise, the judgment is reversed for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)…t clearly appears that the free use and exercise of the testator’s sound mind in executing his will was in fact prevented by deception, undue influence, or other means. Hamilton v. Morgan, 93 Fla.311, 112 So. 80 (1927); Parker v. Penny, 95 Fla. 922, 117 So. 703 (1928); Newman v. Smith, 77 Fla. 633, 82 So. 236 (1918), reversed on rehearing on other grounds; Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377, 149 So. 186 (1932); Marston v. Churchill, 137 Fla. 154, 187 So. 762 (1939). It has been said that mere suspicion and…
-
In re Est. of Nicholas P. Alkire v. Smith, 144 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1940)…bate court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed unless the legal effect of the proof has been misapprehended or there is a lack of evidence to support the findings.” Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855; Parker v. Penny, 95 Fla. 922, 117 So. 703.” Nothing written in' this case conflicts with Section 55 of Chapter 16,103, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1933 (The Probate Act), or with Section 4642 C. G. L. The former opinion of the Court is adhered to. Terrell, C. J., and Chapman, J., concur. B…
-
In re Est. of Frank Thompson v. Thompson, 145 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1940)…not be disturbed unless the legal effect of the proof has been misapprehended, or there is a lack of evidence to support the findings.”—and cited in support of this holding Hopper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 Sou. 855; Parker v. Penney, 95 Fla. 922, 117 Sou. 703. In the Hooper case we held: “Probate court’s fact findings on conflicting evidence-in will contest should ordinarily not be disturbed'on appeal to circuit court where there is ample evidence to sustain findings. When probate judge in will contest…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence