O. E. MARTIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WILLIAM R. KENAN, JR., AND SCOTT M. LOFTIN, AS RECEIVERS OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant in a wrongful death suit. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff, regarding the death of his son at a railroad crossing, was insufficient to overcome the proven contributory negligence of the deceased.
No, the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. The evidence presented by the plaintiff established the deceased's contributory negligence, which barred recovery.
“At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, defendant moved for a .directed verdict.”
Describes the procedural posture of the case at trial.
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's minor son was killed at a grade crossing in Fort Lauderdale when his motorcycle collided with a box car of a standing freight train at…
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
Plaintiff in error- as plaintiff brought *489this action against defendant in error to recover damages for the negligent death of his minor son. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, defendant moved for a .directed verdict. The court announced his intention to grant the motion and the plaintiff moved, for a nonsuit with bill of exemptions which was granted. Writ of error was prosecuted.
Several questions are relied on for reversal but they all turn on the interpretation of the evidence. It áppears that the deceased was killed at a grade crossing in Fort Lauder-dale. A freight train was standing on thp crossing and about nine o’clock at night, the deceased while traversing the highway on a motorcycle, collided with a box car at the crossing and was killed. There was a plea of contributing negligence which was shown to have been proven. A discussion of the evidence can serve no useful purpose.. It has been examined and we think the judgment of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant is concluded by Kimball v. A. C. L. Ry. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435, 90 So. 437; Rayam v. A. C. L. Railroad Co., 119 Fla. 386, 161 So. 415; and Cassereaux v. Powell, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721.
Affirmed.
Buford, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Joe Cacciatore v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1934)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Tomberlin, 70 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1915)
- Kimball v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 132 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1938)
- Mathew (Sometimes called Mack) Rayam v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 119 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1935)
- Chassereau v. Powell, 116 Fla. 586 (Fla. 1934)