ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ELIZABETH MISH, WIDOW OF H. HALL MISH, DECEASED, 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 for wrongful death, finding that the trial court erred in its jury instructions and in overruling a demurrer to one count of the declaration, necessitating a new trial.
The court held that the trial court erred in giving jury charges not supported by evidence and in overruling the demurrer to the third count of the declaration. The exclusion of a photograph was deemed not to be error.
“We have examined the record carefully and we think the cause of justice would be best served by granting a new trial.”
The court's conclusion that a new trial is warranted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant in error (plaintiff) obtained a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error (defendant) for the wrongful death of her husband, w…
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 Pleading Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case defendant in error secured a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error for the alleged wrongful death of her husband, the said death having resulted from a collision between a locomotive of the plaintiff in error and an automobile driven by the husband of the defendant in error at a grade crossing in Lake Hamilton, Florida.
Reversal is sought here because of certain charges given by the court, because of the refusal of the court to admit certain testimony and because the court overruled defendant’s demurrer to count three of the declaration.
We have examined the record carefully and we think the cause of justice would be best served by granting a new trial. Some of the charges of the court were' not warranted by the evidence and since the defendant failed to show the size and proportions of the locomotive as compared with the one that collided with and-killed the deceased and also failed to show that the camera was so located as to fairly reproduce the objects photographed, it was not error to exclude from the jury the photograph offered in evidence and marked defendant’s exhibit five. See generally S. A. L. v. Harmon, 99 Fla. 390, 126 So. R. 493.
The demurrer to the third count of the declaration should have been sustained because this count does not sufficiently allege that the-embankments and growth thereon were on the property of the defendant.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.