A. E. CHASSEREAU
v.
L. R. POWELL, JR., ET AL., RECEIVERS FOR S. A. L. RY. CO.
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.
This case involves a plaintiff suing for injuries sustained in a collision between his automobile and a railroad locomotive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the plaintiff was not entitled to damages based on the evidence presented.
No, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages. The evidence clearly showed the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
“The evidence shows that the locomotive was moving at slow speed over the highway crossing when the automobile approached at such a rate of speed that it could not be stopped before it ran into the side of the locomotive.”
This quote establishes the key factual basis for the court's decision, highlighting the plaintiff's excessive speed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that collided with a locomotive operated by the defendant railroad company. The collision occurred with…
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 Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the court below and sued defendants in error for injuries received by a collision between an automobile in which he was riding and a locomotive being operated by the defendant, through its agents and Servants, on the railroad tracks of defendant in the corporate limits of the City of Monticello, Florida.
The evidence shows that the locomotive was moving at slow speed over the highway crossing when the automobile approached at such a rate of speed that it could not be stopped before it ran into the side of the locomotive.
. There is some conflict in the evidence as to whether or not warnings had been given by the agents operating the locomotive but, under the facts in the case it is clearly shown that plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages.
The judgment should be affirmed upon authority of the decisions and judgments in the cases of Southern Railway Co. v. Mann, 91 Fla. 948, 108 Sou. 889 and Covington v. S. A. L. Railway Co., 99 Fla. 1102, 128 Sou. 426.
*587It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1937)…discharging, a prisoner conclusive until reversed in the manner provided by the statute. D’Allessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231; State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; State v. Prescott, 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533; State v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721. But that question is not properly presented for our consideration here. The information here under attack reads as follows: “Robert R. Taylor, County Solicitor for the County of Dade, prosecuting for the State of Florida, in the said…
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ponds, 156 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…with a standing train, the standard of care therein discussed is applicable to the instant cause, particularly in view of the fact that Mottl was aware of the train at a minimum distance of 250 feet from the crossing. Cf. Chassereau v. Powell, 1934, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721. Conceding Mottl’s negligence and the equally indisputable fact that it proximately caused the accident, the question remains whether it was the sole proximate cause as distinct from a concurring proximate cause. Phrased in terms of th…
-
Tynan v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 254 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1971)…e was negligent as a matter of law and stated that: ‘* * * a driver, approaching a railroad crossing, is under a duty to have his car under control so as to avert collision if possible.’ “Also cited in that decision is Chassereau v. Powell, 1934, [116 Fla. 586] 156 So. 721, where it is held that an automobile approaching a railroad crossing at such a rate of speed that it would not be stopped before running into the side of a locomotive is contributory negligence. “The Plaintiff brought two recent decisi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Covington v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 99 Fla. 1102 (Fla. 1930)
- S. Ry. Co. v. Mann, 91 Fla. 948 (Fla. 1926)