J. TURNER BUTLER AND WILLIAM A. HALLOWES, TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALICE M. PHILY, WIDOW OF FERNAND MAURICE PHILY, DECEASED, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, as there was conflicting evidence regarding negligence, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
This suit arose from a railroad crossing collision where the driver of an automobile was killed. The plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to provid…
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 Presumption Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit arose out of a railroad crossing collision. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the widow of the driver of an automobile which was hit, as it crossed the railroad tracks, by one of the defendants’ trains.
The plaintiff predicates her right of recovery upon the defendants’ failure to give adequate warning of the train’s approach and defendants’ failure to maintain the Railway Company’s right of way immediately adjacent to the crossing in such manner as to afford a reasonably unobstructed view of an oncoming train to any one using said crossing.
The appellants, defendants below, to a large extent base their appeal on Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company v. Tyus, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 33, which decision has been quashed by the Supreme Court- of Florida while the appeal in the instant case has been pending, see Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railway Company, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 580.
The apppellants assert that the Court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendants when the evidence submitted eliminated the statutory presumption and the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving some act of negligence on the part of the defendants. The record discloses a conflict in the testimony on the question of defendants’ negligence. Such conflict presents a question for the jury. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, supra; Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 263; and Martin v. Rivera, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 617. The motion for directed verdict was properly denied.
We have carefully studied the record. The evidence does not show that the deceased was familiar with the crossing. The verdict is supported by the evidence. The trial court did not err in granting and denying certain instructions complained of by the defendants.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…t Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 274; see also 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 93. Nor may he weigh the evidence, Leslie v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 645, resolve conflicts in the evidence, Butler v. Phily, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 337; Finley P. Smith, Inc. v. Schectman, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 460; Bass v. Ramos, 58 Fla. 161, 50 So. 945, or pass on the credibility of witnesses. Leslie v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726. R…
Authorities Cited
- Tyus v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1961)
- Myers v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 112 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1959)
- Apalachicola N. R.R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Martin v. Gregoria Rivera, 99 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)