LESLIE L. MYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FATHER, NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF MICHAEL LYNN MYERS, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND C. B. RUSSELL, APPELLEES
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.
This case concerns whether a railroad must provide more than statutorily required warning devices at a crossing if it is not proven to be extra hazardous. The court affirmed a jury verdict against the plaintiff, holding that additional warnings are not required in such circumstances.
No, more than the statutorily required warning devices are not required if a railroad crossing is not proven to be extra hazardous.
“whether, in the absence of a showing that a railroad crossing is extra hazardous, more than the statutorily required warning devices must be provided.”
This quote states the primary legal question presented to the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff appealed an adverse jury verdict stemming from a collision between a motorcycle and a train at a railroad crossing. The core issue was w…
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 Railroad Crossing Safety cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an adverse jury verdict in an action arising out of a collision between a train and a motorcycle at a railroad crossing. The primary question for consideration is *625whether, in the absence of a showing that a railroad crossing is extra hazardous, more than the statutorily required warning devices must be provided.
This question was answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Wallace, 1911, 61 Fla. 93, 54 So. 893, and the basis for the opinion in Wallace was more recently followed in McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., Fla.App.1966, 198 So.2d 876.
In view of the holding in these cases, it is our view that the judgment appealed should be affirmed.
ANDREWS, J., and SPECTOR, SAM, and NANCE, L. CLAYTON, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Betty Raye Welfare and her mother, 350 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…determination was not within the province of the trial jury in this case.” See also McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 198 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2 DCA 1966), cert. discharged, 199 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1967); Myers v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., 202 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4 DCA 1967), cert. den., 210 So. 2d 224 (Fla.1968); Caudell v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 201 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3 DCA 1967). Appellant also contended that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing into evidence the testimony…
-
Myers v. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co., 210 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So. 2d 624.…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Wallace, 61 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1911)
- McNULTY v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 198 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)