JOHN W. MARTIN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GREGORIA RIVERA, APPELLEE
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 railroad crossing collision case, the appellate court affirmed jury verdicts for three plaintiffs (two injured passengers and the mother of the deceased driver) against a railroad trustee. The court held that substantial evidence supported the verdicts because the trial record contained factual disputes that precluded a directed verdict for the defendant as a matter of law.
The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the jury verdicts and that the trial court properly submitted the cases to the jury. The court found that the prerequisites for a directed verdict under the Timmons doctrine were not conclusively established because disputed factual issues remained regarding visibility, obstructions, and warning signals.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the legal standard for railroad crossing negligence in Florida, allowing directed verdict only when certain conditions are conclusively shown.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA railroad train operated by the defendant collided with an automobile at a grade crossing. The automobile carried two passengers (Ortiz and Rodriguez…
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 Duty To Look And Listen cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
Angel O. Ortiz, Filipe Albino Rodriguez and Gregoria Rivera sued John W. Martin, as Trustee of the property of the Flordia East Coast Railway Company. The three separate causes of action arose out of a railroad crossing collision between defendant’s train and an automobile in which plaintiffs Ortiz and Rodriguez were passengers and plaintiff Rivera’s son was driver. The passengers claimed damages for personal injuries and the dependent mother of the driver claimed damages under Sec. 768.01 et seq., Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for the wrongful death of her son. The cases were consolidated for trial and were argued as one appeal. This opinion will determine each appeal. The jury returned a verdict for each plaintiff. The appeals raise the question: is there any substantial evidence that would warrant verdicts for plaintiffs. The record examined in light of the briefs and oral arguments is found to contain such evidence.
The appellant urges that these appeals fall within the doctrine expressed by Supreme Court of Florida in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 160 Fla. 754, 36 So. 2d 430, 431. In that case the Court held:
“The standard of prudence that one must observe in approaching a grade crossing is not uniform. Some jurisdictions require that one stop, look and listen, regardless of how clear the track is in either direction. Other-courts require the traveler to look and listen, the duty to stop, depending on the circumstances revealed by looking and listening. Pokora v. Wabash R. Co., 292 U.S. 98, 54 S.Ct. 580, 78 L.Ed. 1149, 91 A.L.R. 1049; Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 48 S.Ct. 24, 12 L.Ed. 167, 56 A.L.R. 645. We approve the latter rule in this State and when,. as here, it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff did not look or listen, that there was no obstruction whatever to the vision, that the accident took place in a rural community where looking or listening would have avoided it, he is guilty of negligence which was the sole proximate cause of his injury and cannot recover.”
It is not difficult to understand the logic of this principle. The difficulty comes in determining whether the evidence in a given case is so clear upon the elements set forth in the holding that the court and not the jury ought to settle their existence. Without a discussion of the evidence, it is sufficient to point out that we do not find' the various prerequisites to be conclusively shown. This accident occurred on a' seldom used spur track crossing. The many photographic exhibits show the curve of the tracks approaching the crossing and numerous pine trees and brush, which the jury may'have found obstructed the driver’s vision. In addition, there is serious conflict in the evidence as to whether the railroad train gave warning signals, and, if they' were given, when they were, given.
It is entirely possible that the defendant’s interpretation of the evidence and its conclusion as to how the accident happened is more probable than that which the jury adopted, but it is not so persuasive as to be exclusive of any other reasonably believable conclusion. Unless the conclusion that the defendant was not negligent follows as a matter of law from every reasonable view taken of the facts presented, a verdict for defendant ought not be directed. Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla: 311, 81 So. 476.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyus v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1961)…ace of the subject opinion of the District Court,a it appears there can be no doubt about the question of direct conflict with many of our prior decisions, as well as the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Martin v. Rivera, 99 So. 2d 617, it becomes our duty and responsibility to consider the case on its merits and decide the points passed upon by the District Court which were raised by appropriate assignments of error as completely as though such case had come originally to this co…1 / 2
-
Gabriel A. Sanchez, M.D. v. Wimpey, 409 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982)…ace of the subject opinion of the District Court, it appears there can be no doubt about the question' of direct conflict with many of our prior decisions, as well as the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Martin v. Rivera, 99 So. 2d 617, it becomes our duty and responsibility to consider the case on its merits and decide the points passed upon by the District Court which were raised by appropriate assignments of error as completely as though such case had come originally to this co…
-
Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc., 208 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…lee, owner. A directed verdict ought not be entered at the close of plaintiff’s case unless the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. De Salvo v. Curry, 160 Fla. 7, 33 So. 2d 215 (1948); Martin v. Rivera, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 617. Even where the evidence is not in dispute, when conflicting reasonable inferences may be drawn from the admitted facts, questions of negligence and negligent causation are peculiarly questions of fact which should be permitted to go to the jury. Ma…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1927)
- Nell Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1919)
- Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1934)
- Gallardo v. Santini Fertilizer Co., 275 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1927)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Timmons, 160 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1948)