ARLENE C. CARLTON AND EARL L. CARLTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A bus passenger sued Miami Transit Company for injuries sustained when the bus struck an automobile that turned in front of it. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the bus driver's conduct was consistent with the duty of care required and no negligence was demonstrated.
The court affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant, holding that no negligence on the part of the bus driver was shown. The driver's conduct—checking for traffic to his immediate left and rear before moving, then directing his attention to the intersection—was activity consistent with the duty of care required, and mere occurrence of an accident does not establish negligence.
“The mere fact that an accident occurs does not necesssarily justify a cause of action to a passenger on a common carrier. Some negligent act on the part of the carrier or its driver must be shown in order to give rise to a cause of action to a passenger for injuries sustained.”
Establishes the legal standard that a passenger must prove negligence, not merely the occurrence of an accident.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArlene Carlton was a passenger on a bus operated by Miami Transit Company. The bus had stopped to discharge passengers immediately south of an interse…
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 Derivative Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an adverse final judgment rendered upon a directed verdict.
The plaintiff, Arlene C. Carlton, was a passenger on a bus operated by the appel-lee, Miami Transit Company, and she filed, her action for personal injuries sustained *582as a result of an alleged injury, which occurred when the bus struck an automobile which turned in front of it. Her husband’s, Earl L. Carlton, cause of action was derivative in nature.
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellants, no negligence on the part of the bus driver is shown in this record. Just prior to the ac-, cident, the bus had stopped to discharge passengers immediately south of an intersection. Following the discharge of passengers, it started and continued in a northerly direction in the lane of traffic closest to the curb. After it had gone approximately 40 feet and was 8 feet into the intersection, it struck the right side of an automobile which was executing a right turn from the northbound lane immediately to the left, of the bus, turning in front of it. It appears, from the record, that the driver looked as he started the bus and did not see any car approaching from the rear or immediately alongside of the bus. As he went through the intersection, his attention would normally be directed to traffic on the cross streets and to any cars coming south which might have been turning left across the path of the bus. It is impossible for a driver to be observant in all directions at one time. Having examined the area to his immediate left and rear as he commenced to move the bus, and then turning his attention to the movement in and about the intersection was activity, on his part, certainly consistent with the duty and care required of a person in his position. The mere fact that an accident occurs does not necesssarily justify a cause of action to a passenger on a common carrier. Some negligent act on the part of the carrier or its driver must be shown in order to give rise to a cause of action to a passenger for injuries sustained. See: , Kantor v. City of Coral Gables, 154 Fla. 523, 18 So.2d 477; Jacksonville Coach Company v. Rivers, Fla. 1962, 144 So.2d 308.
This record failing to demonstrate any overt act or omission of the transit company’s employee, which would have constituted a breach of duty owed the passenger, the directed verdict is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rae Kaufman v. A-1 BUS Lines, Inc., 363 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…t; here, there was none. Under these circumstances, it is clear that appellee owed no duty to appellant in regard to the injuries which she sustained. See, e. g., Kenan v. Houston, 150 Fla. 357, 7 So. 2d 837 (1942); and Carlton v. Miami Transit Co., 147 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Compare Stevenson v. Four Winds Travel, Inc., 462 F. 2d 899 (5th Cir. 1972). In the light of our determination above, we believe that the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint; however, we are of the opinion that…
-
City CAB Co. OF Orlando, Inc. v. Green, 308 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)….” (Emphasis supplied.) See 5 Fla.Jur. Carriers § 130 (1955). In other words, negligence may not be inferred from the mere happening of an accident alone. Jacobs v. Harlem Cab Inc., 183 So. 2d 552 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1966); Carlton v. Miami Transit Co., 147 So. 2d 581 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1962); see, Metropolitan Dade County v. Dillon, 305 So. 2d 36 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1974); McCormick Shipping Corp. v. Warner, 129 So. 2d 448 (3d D.C. A.Fla.1961); Belden v. Lynch, 126 So. 2d 578 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1961). We have read and studied…
-
Grant v. DOE, 228 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Blackman v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 128, 92 A.L.R.2d 1387; Carlton v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 581; Miami Transit Company v. Ford, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 261.…
Authorities Cited
- Jacksonville Coach Co. v. Rivers, 144 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1962)
- Kantor v. City OF Coral Gables, 154 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1944)
- Odel Johnson and wife Evelyn Johnson v. Robinson, 154 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1944)