ERNEST R. DENTON
v.
ATLANTIC & ST. ANDREWS BAY RAILWAY COMPANY
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 judgment for the defendant railway company, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of his injury when his automobile collided with a box car obstructing a highway.
The court held that the plaintiff's amended declaration failed to allege actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and, instead, showed that the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
“We have examined the amended declaration and find that its allegations are sufficient to show that plaintiff's own negligence in the operation of his automobile was the proximate cause of the injury and that it fails to allege actionable negligence on the part of defendant.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, highlighting the plaintiff's contributory negligence.
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 was driving his automobile on a public highway and collided with a box car that was part of a train obstructing the highway. The plainti…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of defendant on demurrer sustained to an amended declaration wherein plaintiff sought to recover damages for injury alleged to have been sustained as the result of a collision between plaintiff’s automobile, which plaintiff was 'driving on the public highway, and a box car standing in a train of cars on defendant’s tracks and across and obstructing the highway.
We have examined the amended declaration and find that its allegations are sufficient to show that plaintiff’s own negligence in the operation of his automobile was the proximate cause of the injury and that it fails to allege actionable negligence on the part of defendant. See Kimball v. A. C. L. Ry. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 Sou. 533. See also Clark v. A. C. L. Ry. Co., filed this day and authorities therein cited. Also see Cline, as Administratrix, etc., v. Powell, et al., as Receivers of Seaboard Air Line Railway Co., filed this day.
Judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Wi-ii,tfield and Chapman, J. J., concur in opinion and judgment.
Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 56 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1951)…., 119 Fla. 386, 161 So. 415; Kimball v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533; Woods v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 100 Fla. 909, 130 So. 601; Cline v. Powell, 141 Fla. 119, 192 So. 628; Denton v. Atlantic & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co., 141 Fla. 153, 192 So. 624; Powell v. Gary, 146 Fla. 334, 200 So. 854; Brown v. Loftin, 154 Fla. 621, 18 So. 2d 540, and similar cases. It is suggested that this Court could rest its ruling of affirmance exclusively on the Kimball case, supra. Counsel for plaint…
-
City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Alf H. Blake, 257 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…payers may not first resort to arbitration, and then on receiving an adverse result in that forum, resort to court action. Estoppel by conduct should be determined by the facts of each case. City of South Miami v. State ex rel. Landis, 140 Fla. 740, 192 So. 624, 627. The Assessors have failed to demonstrate that the lower court erred in refusing to apply the principles of estoppel by conduct. The Taxpayers here have not asserted inconsistent positions in the arbitration proceeding and in the court action.…
-
Brown v. Loftin, 154 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1944)…tion failed to state a cause of action and bottomed his conclusions on cases viz: Kimball v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533; Cline v. Powell, 141 Fla. 119, 192 So. 628; Denton v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay R. Co., 141 Fla. 153, 192 So. 624; Clark v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 141 Fla. 155, 192 So. 621, and similar cases. Counsel for plaintiff below perfected an appeal here. It is contended here that the case at bar is distinguishable from the cited cases for reasons viz: (1) the cit…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kimball v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 132 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1938)