SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND JAMES B. MAYES, CONDUCTOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER MCCUTCHEON, 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.
Seaboard Air Line Railroad and its conductor appealed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff McCutcheon in a personal injury case arising from an incident in the railroad's freight yard. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding no harmful error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of a motion for new trial.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the matters complained of were not harmful error or such as to result in a miscarriage of justice.
“A verdict should not be set aside, necessitating the retrial of a case, unless error sufficiently grave as to appear prejudicial is disclosed.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate reversal of jury verdicts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff McCutcheon was struck and injured by moving railroad equipment in Seaboard's freight yard after midnight on May 17, 1957. The evidence confl…
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 Conflicting Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.1 The nature of the action and factual background were stated briefly in the opening of appellant’s brief as follows: “This is a personal injury action brought by plaintiff against the Seaboard Air Line Railroad and its conductor, James B. Mayes. Depending on which version of the evidence is believed, plaintiff was either asleep under a box car or taking a short cut across the railroad’s freight yard after midnight on May 17, 1957. Whatever he was doing, he was struck and injured by moving railroad equipment.”
Appellant presents four points. One concerns certain testimony which it claimed was improperly admitted. Two deal with charges claimed to be erroneous. The fourth point, relating to incidents occurring in the trial, was stated thusly: “Whether the trial court, in view of prejudicial remarks of plaintiff’s counsel and the trial court itself, erred in denying defendant’s motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence and the product of passion and prejudice ?”
The parties were in agreement that the law of the case was controlled by Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Branham, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 621. The question of liability was decided by the jury on conflicting evidence. It took approximately seven days to try this case. A verdict 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, *578129 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 not harmful error, or such as to result in a miscarriage of justice.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roscoe T. Anthony, Jr. v. Douglas, 201 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…riously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Jacksonville v. Glover, 1915, 69 Fla. 701, 69 So. 20; Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 1931, 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886; Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. McCutcheon, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 577. It has also been held that errors which do not affect the outcome of the trial are not harmful. The test is whether, but for the error complained of, a different result would have been reached by the jury. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 33…
-
City OF Miami v. Fletcher, 167 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ained the objection and-no further action was requested. In others, the objection was denied. In no case was the argument such as to require a reversal because of prejudice or passion in general. See Seaboard Air Line RR v. McCutcheon, Fla.App.1964, 158 So. 2d 577. Affirmed.…
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank AT Kendall, 404 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ntiff/appellant Travelers Insurance Company. E. O. Roper, Inc. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 116 Fla. 796, 156 So. 883, 884 (1934); see e. g, Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689, 697-98 (1927); Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. McCutcheon, 158 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 165 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1964). As there is no reversible error shown on the main appeal, the points raised by the cross appeal necessarily become moot. Bour v. Sherman, 113 Fla. 730, 152 So. 3 (1934); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, “Appellat…
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
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 152 Fla. 486 (Fla. 1943)
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- McCUTCHEON v. Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co., 133 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Schuster v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 99 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. & R. H. Williams v. Branham, 99 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Sullivan v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 100 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1930)