SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAN CAMPBELL, D/B/A CAMPBELL BROTHERS TRUCKING COMPANY AND FRANCIS KENNEDY, APPELLEES, V. CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in a railroad crossing collision case, holding that failure to instruct the jury on a statute that was later repealed cannot constitute reversible error because appellate courts apply the law in effect at the time of disposition, not at the time of the trial.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in refusing to give the requested jury instruction because an appellate court disposes of cases according to the law prevailing at the time of appellate disposition, not at the time of trial, and since the statute upon which the requested instruction was based has been repealed, it cannot be controlling law for purposes of appellate review.
[1] An appellate court will dispose of a case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition, not the law prevailing at the time of the judgment app…
[2] Failure to instruct a jury on a statute that has been repealed prior to appellate disposition cannot constitute reversible error.
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“We recognize the general and Florida rule to be that an appellate court, in reviewing a judgment on direct appeal, will dispose of the case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition, and not according to the law prevailing at the time of rendition of the judgment appealed.”
Establishes the controlling principle that appellate courts apply the law in effect at the time of appellate review, not at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeaboard Coast Line Railroad Company was the defendant in an action arising from a collision at a railroad crossing. Appellee Campbell was 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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company was defendant below in an action arising out of a collision occurring at a railroad crossing. Appellee Campbell was the plaintiff below and driver of a tractor-trailer vehicle coming within the purview of Section 317.453, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., (now repealed). Said statute requires vehicles of the type which was here involved to stop before crossing in order to ascertain whether a railroad train is approaching.
At the trial appellant-defendant requested a jury instruction based on the cited statute. The trial court denied the requested instruction and the jury brought in a verdict in favor, of the appellee-plaintiffs.
The primary issue raised on this appeal rests on the claim that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the cited statute as requested. Appellee contends that failure to give the requested instruction could not be the basis for the reversal of the judgment appealed for the reason, inter alia, that the statute relied on as basis for the instruction has since been repealed. We agree.
In Ingerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 272 So. 2d 862 (Fla.App.1973), the court adhered to the rule earlier stated by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1966), wherein the court quoted the District Court’s decision as follows:
“ ‘We recognize the general and Florida rule to be that an appellate court, in reviewing a judgment on direct appeal, will dispose of the case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition, and not according to the law prevailing at the time of rendition of the judgment appealed.’ ” at page 262.
Since the primary point urged for reversal in the case at bar rests upon the failure to give an instruction based on a statute which has since been repealed, the statute can hardly be said to be controlling law of this case. It follows then that failure to give appellant’s requested instruction based on the repealed statute cannot constitute reversible error. Affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., TL, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Miami Crane Serv., Inc., 43 Fla. Supp. 102 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1975)…onovan v. Environs Palm Beach, Fla. App. 1975, 309 So. 2d 561; 33 Flavors of Florida, Inc. v. Larsen, Fla. App. 1975, 308 So. 2d 591; R & R Lounge, Inc. v. Wynne, Fla. App. 1973, 286 So. 2d 13; Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Campbell, Fla. App. 1973, 285 So. 2d 62; Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., Fla. App. 1973, 272 So. 2d 862. In each of these cases, a statutory amendment or repeal- . ing enactment which by its very terms did not become “effective” until after the occurrence of the events which ga…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Campbell, 293 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 285 So. 2d 62. ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)