THOMAS SULLIVAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment for the defendant railway company in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a passenger in a car that collided with a train, sued for damages but the court found any errors in the trial to be harmless.
The court held that while there may have been errors during the trial, they were harmless and did not affect the outcome of the case.
“We have examined the errors assigned carefully and we are convinced that such assignments if they amounted to error were harmless and that the judgment below should be affirmed.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion that any trial errors were not prejudicial.
Thomas Sullivan was a passenger in an automobile that collided with a locomotive at a grade crossing. Sullivan did not control the vehicle. He sued th…
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 Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
— -Thomas Sullivan, the plaintiff in error, was injured in a collision between an automobile in which he was a passenger and a locomotive of defendant in error at a grade crossing in Dade County. Sullivan was not the driver of and had no control over the automobile. Sullivan sued the defendant in error in a common law action to recover for his injuries. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant in error, to which writ of error was taken to this Court.
Error is assigned because of the court’s order overruling the motion for new trial, because of certain charges given by the court, and because of the acceptance of one W. S. MeQuaide to serve on the jury.
We have examined the errors assigned carefully and we are convinced that such assignments if they amounted to error were harmless and that the judgment below should be affirmed. Section 2812, Rev. Gen. Stats, of 1920 (Section 4499, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927).
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Company-Workmen's Comp. Lienor v. Lige Harb, 170 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…longed to the carrier. However, because of our determination of the other issue in this appeal, we deem at most that this action on the part of the trial court would amount to no more than harmless error. See: Sullivan v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 42, 129 So. 340; Victor Hotel Owners v. Sperling, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So. 2d 120; § 54.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. As noted, the appellant concedes that the equitable distribution by the court is a discretionary matter, but contends that the failure to awar…
-
Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. McCUTCHEON, 158 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…ict should not be set aside, necessitating the retrial of a case, unless error sufficiently grave as to appear prejudicial is disclosed. This has received legislative recognition. § 54.23, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. See Sullivan v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 42, [*578] 129 So. 340; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 152 Fla. 486, 12 So. 2d 374; Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So. 2d 120. After a careful examination of the record we conclude that the matters complained of were…