ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
R. R. SECKINGER, 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 judgment in a fire damage case, finding that the jury's view of the premises was improper because it was conducted in the company of the plaintiff and his witness.
Yes, the jury's view of the premises was improper and unauthorized because it was conducted in the company of the plaintiff and his witness.
“Even if there was no communication between the jurors, and the plaintiff and his witness on the trip for the jury to have the view, it was not proper for the Court to permit the jury to make the view in company with the plaintiff and his witness, and the judgment must be reversed be [*423] cause of such unauthorized and improper proceedings.”
The court's reasoning for reversing the judgment based on the improper jury view.
In a lawsuit for damages to fruit trees caused by a fire from the defendant railroad's locomotive, the trial court ordered a view of the premises. Dur…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In an action to recover damages for injury to fruit trees caused by fire alleged to have been set out by sparks escaping from defendant’s locomotive, the Court, in ordering a view of the premises, instructed that a witness for the plaintiff, in company of the bailiff, go along to point out the boundaries, to which defendant excepted. . Three of the jurors went to the view in a car with the bailiff and the plaintiff; the other three jurors went in a car with á witness for the plaintiff.
Even if there was no communication between the jurors, and the plaintiff and his witness on the trip for the jury to have the view, it was not proper for the Court to permit the jury to make the view in company with the plaintiff and his witness, and the judgment must be reversed be cause of such unauthorized and improper proceedings. At another trial the testimony should be confined to the issues duly made, and the charges should clearly and concisely state the law applicable to the case as made by the pleadings and the evidence.
Reversed.
. 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
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Althouse, 427 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…re such as to cast a shadow of impropriety over the result of the jury in this case.” He did not find any actual improper contact had occurred, but relied solely upon the “appearance” of impropriety. Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company v. Seckinger, 96 Fla. 422, 117 So. 898 (1928). Had counsel for Althouse requested a mistrial when the juror-witness contact was discovered, either before or after Farina testified, perhaps he would have been entitled to one. However, counsel for Althouse elected to let the…