WILLIAM R. KENAN, JR., AND SCOTT M. LOFTIN, AS RECEIVERS OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
SHIRLEY S. BLACK, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against the Florida East Coast Railway Company, awarding a new trial. The justices were divided, with some finding no actionable negligence and others deeming the verdict excessive.
The Court reversed the judgment and awarded a new trial. The justices were split, with a majority finding either no actionable negligence or an excessive verdict.
“The judgment of the Cir [*504] cuit Court of Dade County, Florida, appealed from is hereby reversed and a new trial awarded.”
This quote states the final disposition of the case by the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved an appeal by William R. Kenan, Jr., and Scott M. Loftin, as receivers of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, against a judgment…
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
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and oral argument heard at the bar of the Court for the respective parties, the briefs having been carefully inspected or examined, and the Court now. being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises: Chief Justice Brown and Justice Buford are of the opinion that the record fails to disclose actionable negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in error, or their employees, while Justices Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman and Thomas are of the opinion that the amount of the verdict and judgment is excessive in amount and for this reason the said judgment appealed from should be reversed. The judgment of the Cir*504cuit Court of Dade County, Florida, appealed from is hereby reversed and a new trial awarded.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Crovella v. Cleland D. Cochrane, M.D., 102 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…ds that are recognized as necessary to be followed in the particular case according to the standards of those who are qualified by training and experience to perform similar services in the community. As said in Hill v. Boughton, 1941, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So. 2d 610, 613, 134 A.L.R. 678: “His responsibility is to use ordinary skill and diligence and to apply the means and methods ordinarily and generally used by physicians of ordinary skill and learning in the practice of his profession to determine the nature…
-
M. David Sims, M.D. v. Helms, 345 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1977)…ether he deviated from accepted medical practice. Negligence cannot be inferred from the fact that the surgery was unsuccessful or terminated in unfortunate results. Bourgeois v. Dade County, 99 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1957); Hill v. Boughton, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So. 2d 610 (1941); Anderson v. Gordon, 334 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In O’Grady v. Wiekman, supra, two doctors were sued for essentially the same act with which petitioner is charged. During a hysterectomy operation the patient’s bladder was inadvertentl…
-
Musachia v. Terry, 140 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…one who was qualified in the field of medical knowledge to inform the jurors of the proper procedures for diagnosing and treating the particular case. Atkins v. Humes, Fla. 1959, 110 So. 2d 663, 666, 81 A.L.R.2d 590; Hill v. Boughton, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So. 2d 610, 134 A.L.R. 678; Brown v. Swindal, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 38, 40; Crovella v. Cochrane, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 307, 310. In recognition of the foregoing requirement, the plaintiff sought to present the opinion of Joseph S. Stewart, M.D. The ref…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence