TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MYRTLE BRYANT, 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.
Tampa Electric Company challenges a $15,000 wrongful death judgment awarded to a widow for her husband's death caused by contact with an unprotected ground wire. The Florida Supreme Court found that while both parties were negligent, the trial court failed to properly apportion damages according to the statutory requirement that recoverable damages be diminished in proportion to the injured party's negligence.
The court held that the damages were not properly diminished in proportion to the decedent's negligence as required by statute. The court offered the plaintiff the option to remit $7,000 within thirty days, which would allow the judgment to stand affirmed at $8,000, or face reversal and a new trial.
“under the hazardous occupations statute if there is contributory negligence the recoverable damages shall be diminished in proportion to the negligence attributable to the injured party”
Establishes the statutory framework governing damage apportionment in cases involving hazardous occupations where the injured party is partially negligent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA lineman employed by Tampa Electric Company died while working on live electric wires on a utility pole. The decedent's exposed arm touched a live wi…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error was taken to a judgment for $15,000.00 damages awarded to a widow for the wrongful death of her husband while employed by the electric company as a lineman, whose death is allegéd to have been caused by contact with a negligently unprotected ground wire while working on live electric wires on a pole supporting electric wires of defendant. There was no plea of contributory negligence, but under the hazardous occupations statute if there is contributory negligence the recoverable damages shall be diminished in proportion to the negligence attributable to the injured party. Sections 7047 (4960), 7060 (4973), C. G. L.; F. C. & P. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 So. 328; 79 A. S. R. 149; 17 C.J. 1243; 8 R. C. L. 780.
*205The evidence indicates that the decedent was negligent in permitting his exposed arm to touch a live wire on which he, an experienced lineman, was working. The evidence also indicates negligence of the defendant in leaving exposed the ground wire which the decedent’s foot touched when his arm came in contact with the exposed wire on which he was working.
It seems apparent that the damages sustained were not . properly diminished in proportion “to the amount of default attributable to” the decedent as required by the statute.
A ground of liability appearing and the damages awarded not being properly apportioned, it is ordered that if within thirty days the plaintiff below enters a remittitur of seven thousand dollars as of the date of the judgment, the judgment shall stand affirmed for eight thousand dollars, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. See St. Johns Electric Co. vs. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188, 105 So. 818; S. U. Co. v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168, 105 So. 315.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Watson, 103 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1931)…4965) Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927; Atlantic Coast Line Ry. v. Watkins, supra; Germak v. Florida East Coast Railway, 95 Fla. 991, 117 So. 391; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Harrison, 84 Fla. 497, 94 So. 382; Tampa Electric Co. v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 204, 133 So. 887. The remaining assignments of error relate to certain charges given and certain charges asked for by defendant, which were refused. These assignments question the constitutionality of Section 7051 (4964) Compiled General Laws of Florid…
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1899)
- The St. Johns Elec. Co. v. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1925)
- S. Utils. Co. v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1925)