AAACON AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILDRED MEGNA, 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.
An interstate motor carrier was liable for negligently damaging a vehicle in its care during transport, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees, holding that Section 8 of the Interstate Commerce Act only permits attorney's fees when liability arises from a violation of the Act itself, not from common law negligence.
An interstate carrier liable for negligent damage to property under Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act is not liable for attorney's fees under Section 8 of the Act, because Section 8 applies only to damages resulting from violations of the Act itself, not to damages arising from common law negligence.
[1] An interstate carrier liable under Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act for damage to property is not liable for attorney's fees under Section 8 of the Act.
[2] Section 8 of the Interstate Commerce Act applies only when the cause of action is for damages sustained in consequence of a violation of the Act.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“But that section applies to cases where the cause of action is the doing of something made unlawful by some provision of the act, or the omission to do something required by the act, and there is a recovery 'of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of this act'”
Establishes that Section 8 attorney's fees apply only to violations of the Interstate Commerce Act, not to ordinary negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant AAACON Auto Transport, an interstate motor carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, negligently damaged appellee Mildred Megna's auto…
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 Attorney'S Fees Under Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
Appellant, an interstate motor carrier subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, Title 49, U.S.C., while entrusted with appellee’s automobile to transport it from Massachusetts to Florida, negligently damaged the vehicle. Appellee recovered judgment for the damage to the vehicle and for attorney’s fees.
Appellant assigned error to the award of attorney’s fees and the sole issue properly before us on this appeal is whether an interstate carrier who becomes liable under Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act for damage to property is thereby liable for attorney’s fees to the property owner under Section 8 of the Act.1 This question was decided many years ago by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 1911, 219 U.S. 186, at page 208, 31 S.Ct. 164, at page 171, 55 L.Ed. 167, wherein that court, referring to Section 8 of the Act stated:
“But that section applies to cases where the cause of action is the doing of something made unlawful by some provision of the act, or the omission to do something required by the act, and there is a recovery ‘of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of this act,’ etc. The cause of action in the present case is not for damages resulting from ‘any violation of the provisions of this act’ . . . But the cause of action was the loss of the plaintiff’s property which had been entrusted to it as a common carrier, and that loss is in no way traceable to the violation of any provision of the act to regulate commerce. Having sustained no damage which was a consequence of the violation of the act, this section has no application to this case.”
The final judgment is modified by deleting therefrom that portion awarding to the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the sum of $1,000.00, and as thus modified the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, as modified.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. . “ § 8. Liability in damages to persons injured by violation of law.
In ease any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or tiling-in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this chapter, together with a reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of recovery, which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in the case.”