JACKSONVILLE PAPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
v.
FRED. E. THURMAN
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 judgment for an injured employee, holding that an employer who rejected the Workmen's Compensation Act could not plead contributory negligence as a defense. The employee lost fingers while operating a paper cutting machine.
No, an employer who has rejected the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act is precluded from pleading contributory negligence as a defense. The court found the employer's plea of contributory negligence was unavailable.
“The gist of negligence charged was failure to maintain the machine in á reasonably safe condition.”
Describes the basis of the employee's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFred E. Thurman, an employee of Jacksonville Paper Company, lost the thumb and three fingers on his right hand while operating a paper cutting machine…
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 Plea In Bar cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals from a $12,500.00 judgment by appellee for the loss of the thumb and three fingers on his right hand while employed by appellant to operate a paper cutting machine. The gist of negligence charged was failure to main*907tain the machine in á reasonably safe condition. Pleas of not guilty and contributory negligence were interposed. The latter went out on demurrer and the case was tried in keeping with such ruling^. ...
It is claimed that the plea was good as a predicate to prove mitigation of damages. The plea was not so framed. It was filed as a plea in bar. Nevertheless it was not available in any regard inasmuch as appellant had rejected the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and by so doing it was precluded from pleading contributory negligence. Sec. 440.06, Fla. Stat. 1941. Appellant relies on our opinion in Tampa Electric Company v. Hardy, 139 Fla. 142, 190 So. 478, however there the hazardous occupation statute (Sec. 769.01, Fla. Stat. 1941) applied whereas here it does not.
We have given careful consideration to the other questions and find them without merit and an opinion thereon would serve no useful purpose.
The judgment is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.