PEARL BREWER, APPELLANT,
v.
APALACHICOLA NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A FLORIDA 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.
In a wrongful death railroad crossing accident case, the court affirmed summary judgment for the railroad company, holding that the decedent's failure to look before walking onto the tracks, combined with his negligence continuing until impact, precluded recovery under the doctrine of last clear chance.
The court held that Mrs. Brewer is precluded from relying on the doctrine of last clear chance because the decedent's negligence in failing to look was a continuous and substantial factor in the collision up until impact, and summary judgment for the railroad was proper.
[1] A plaintiff is precluded from relying on the doctrine of last clear chance when the evidence shows without dispute that the plaintiff's decedent was guilty of negligence…
[2] In a railroad crossing accident case, a pedestrian's failure to look for an approaching train, when there is no obstruction to vision and the accident occurs in a rural c…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff did not look . . . that there was no obstruction whatever to the vision, that the accident took place in a rural community where looking . . . would have avoided it”
Establishes the undisputed facts showing the decedent's failure to exercise basic care by not looking before entering the crossing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Brewer's husband was struck and killed by a train while walking on the railroad tracks at a grade crossing operated by Apalachicola Northern Rail…
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.1
In this particular railroad crossing accident case wherein Mrs. Brewer sued the Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company for the death of her pedestrian husband who walked upon the railroad track of the company in front of an approaching train at a grade crossing and was thereby killed, the record shows that while a jury could find the railroad guilty of negligence2 in affording an inadequate warning by horn or bell of the approach of the train, “it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff did not look . . . that there was no obstruction whatever to the vision, that the accident took place in a rural community where looking . . . would have avoided it”, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 160 Fla. 754, 36 So. 2d 430, 431 (1948); Knott v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., 151 So. 2d 11, 12 (3 Fla.App.3rd 1963) ; that Mrs. Brewer is consequently precluded from relying upon the doctrine of the last clear chance as explained by such cases as Perdue v. Copeland, 220 So. 2d 617, 620 (Fla.1969), (remarking that the doctrine is of no avail “when the evidence shows without dispute that the plaintiff [or his decedent, in a wrongful death action] was guilty of negligence that continued up to the time of impact and was a substantial factor in the resulting collision”), Berman Leasing Co. v. Price, 223 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla.App.3rd 1969); McBee v. Cain, 240 So. 2d 178 (Fla.App.4th 1970); Merchants’ Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496, 149 So. 401, 404, 405 (1933), and Parker v. Perfection Cooperative Dairies, 102 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla.App.2nd 1958) ; and that, therefore, the defendant railroad company’s instant final summary judgment obtained in the trial court should be, and is,
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. . This opinion was authored by Charles Cook Howell, Jr., Associate Judge, prior to his resignation from the Bench. It is now adopted as a per curiam opinion by the members of this panel.
. Writes Mrs. Brewer’s counsel in his brief: “ . . . for purposes of this appeal, Appellant’s brief is directed to pre-Jones law.” (Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 [Fla.1973]).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brewer v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 317 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 303 So. 2d 652. ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, JJ., and DREW, J. (RETIRED), concur. ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Merchs. Transp. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1933)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Timmons, 160 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1948)
- Parker v. Perfection Coop. Dairies, 102 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Perdue v. Copeland, 220 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1969)
- Knott v. Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. & O. L. Steele, 151 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Berman Leasing Co. v. Price, 223 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Dorris W. McBEE and Ralph A. McBee v. Cain, 240 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)