RODERICK KNOTT, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF IVORY TAYLOR, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND O. L. STEELE, ENGINEER, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1963-03-12
No. 62-421
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
151 So. 2d 11 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

Administrator and dependents of Ivory Taylor appealed after the trial court directed a verdict for the railroad defendants in a wrongful death case. The court affirmed, holding that Taylor's failure to look for an oncoming train while crossing familiar railroad tracks constituted sole negligence, defeating recovery despite the railroad's statutory duty of care.


Holding

The court held that insufficient evidence existed to support a jury verdict for the plaintiffs because the railroad presented evidence through the defendant engineer's testimony that it exercised all ordinary and reasonable care, the deceased's death was caused solely by his own negligence in failing to look for an oncoming train despite obvious hazards, and no recovery is allowable under the comparative negligence statute.


Key Quotes

“The undisputed facts are that Ivory Taylor never saw the train that killed him until the moment of impact.”

Establishes the critical fact of the deceased's failure to observe the oncoming train despite warning signs and opportunities to do so.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Ivory Taylor was struck and killed by a train operated by Seaboard Air Line Railroad at a grade crossing on N.W. 19th Avenue where he worked for Lehma…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HENDRY, Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendants after the court had directed a verdict for the defendants at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case.

The plaintiffs are the administrator and dependents of Ivory Taylor, who was killed when struck by a train of defendant, Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. which was being operated under the supervision of defendant, O. L. Steele. It was 10:30 in the morning on a clear day when Ivory Taylor met with this tragic accident. It occurred while he was walking across the railroad tracks which separated various operations of a lumber and building supply business of his employer, Lehman Lumber Co. The railroad tracks are straight at this point and run in an easterly and westerly direction across N.W. 19th Avenue which runs north and south. At this intersection the lumber company carried on its operations on all four corners. The only warning device consisted of a wooden cross-arm on either side of the tracks. However, Ivory Taylor was thoroughly familiar with the crossing as his work required him to cross the tracks many times during the course of a day.

*12The undisputed facts are that Ivory Tay'lor never saw the train that killed .him until the moment of impact.

A fellow employee, sitting in a truck on the opposite side of the tracks, testified that he watched Taylor approach the tracks, saw the train coming, heard its whistle blowing and tried to warn Taylor by blowing his horn. He further stated that Taylor walked at a steady gait and never looked in the direction of the train.

The defendant, Steele, was called as a witness for the plaintiff. He testified that he was acting as fireman on the train. He confirmed that the train whistle was blowing and the bell was ringing. He stated that he saw the deceased walking from the lumber yard toward the tracks but had no reason to suspect that he would walk in front of the train. From his uncontradict-ed testimony it is apparent that the defendant-railroad exercised all the care and diligence that could be expected from it.

We have carefully reviewed the testimony introduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor. Section 768.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that a railroad company shall be liable for damages occasioned by it to persons and property unless it shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence. However, this showing can be made by the plaintiff’s own witnesses on their direct examination or by the railroad’s cross-examination of them.1 The testimony of Steele accomplished this result and overcame this procedural presumption.

Further, our courts have on many occasions approved a directed verdict in favor of a railroad where it was clear that the plaintiff neglected to observe the most elementary duty of care imposed upon him to protect himself from an obvious hazard.2 The evidence in this case leaves no doubt that Ivory Taylor would be alive today had he been in the least bit alert and had he merely looked to see if a train was coming. His failure to do so, when coupled with the testimony of Steele as to the care that was exercised by the railroad, supports the finding that Taylor’s death was caused solely by his own negligence. Thus, no recovery is allowable under § 768.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Several cross-assignments of error were filed by the defendants. In view of our holding, it is unnecessary for us to decide these points.

Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Adams v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 179 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …sole proximate cause of his injuries, we find it unnecessary to consider the other questions raised by the parties to the appeal. Accordingly the judgment is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . Knott v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 11. . Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Holland, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 691. . 39 F. 2d 403 (5th Cir.1930). . Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Soper, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 605. . 63 Fla. 95, 107, 58 So. 225, 229 (1912). . Supra, note 2…
  • Knott v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co., 155 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1963)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 151 So. 2d 11.…
  • Lindsey v. Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co., 248 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
    …s approaching as it was the duty of the railroad company to cause warnings by appropriate signals to be given of an approaching train. Covington v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 99 Fla. 1102, 128 So. 426 (1930); Knott v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., 151 So. 2d 11 (Fla.App.3rd, 1963). This then brings us to the second issue of whether or not proper warnings were given. The trial judge had before him the testimony of two of the trainmen and a nearby resident that the whistles and horn were blowing. Appellant…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw