BETTY TURMAN, AS WIDOW OF HARLEY E. TURMAN, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY 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.
The trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on the comparative negligence statute because it had been declared unconstitutional prior to trial.
Plaintiff's husband was killed in a railroad crossing accident. The plaintiff sued the railroad for wrongful death. The trial court refused to instruc…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Betty Turman, widow of Harley E. Turman, Jr., appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant, Florida East Coast Railway Company, in an action for wrongful death of her husband arising out of a railroad crossing accident.
The accident occurred on June 1, 1962. The suit was filed on October 4, 1963. The trial of the case before the court began- on July 6, 1965. The judgment was entered on July 14, 1965. The decision of the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional the comparative negligence statute, F.S.A. § 768.06, was filed on May 12, 1965. Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co., Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 39.
The trial judge refused the request of the plaintiff that the jury be instructed on the comparative negligence *605statute, F.S.A. § 768.06. This ruling was correct. A trial judge must apply the law as it exists at the time of trial.
The plaintiff urges this court to hold that the decision in Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co., supra, applies only to actions for property damage. The Supreme Court held F.S.A. § 768.06 invalid in its entirety. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 260.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turman v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., 201 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 195 So. 2d 604.…
-
BOX v. S. Ga. Ry. Co., 433 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1970)…s mitigated proportionately. This section was declared unconstitutional in Georgia Southern & F. Railway Company v. Seven-Up Bottling Company, Fla.1965, 175 So. 2d 39, as to property damage, and in Turman v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 604, as to personal injury (and necessarily of course as to a wrongful death action under Section 768.01). Since these two sections are no longer valid railroad company defendants in Florida are now liable to the same extent and are entitled to the same…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. OF Se. Ga., Inc., 175 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1965)