FLORIDA MOTOR LINES CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
THOMAS J. WOOD
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.
A passenger on a bus operated by Florida Motor Lines Corporation recovered a $15,000 judgment for personal injuries sustained when the bus was struck by another bus operated by the same company. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments regarding jury instructions, admissibility of photographs, and excessiveness of the verdict.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the jury instruction regarding pre-existing conditions, no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs, and no excessiveness in the verdict amount given the age, earning power, and extent of injury involved.
“If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the bus collision the plaintiff was suffering from physical weakness or predisposition of an injury to his back by reason of his 1943 accident, and that he sustained injuries in the bus collision which aggravated the plaintiff's preexisting condition, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the injuries consequent upon such collision providing, of course, that you further find that the injuries, if any, sustained in the bus collision were the proximate result of the defendant's negligence.”
The trial court's instruction on recovery for aggravated pre-existing conditions, which the appellate court found appropriate and not erroneous despite defendant's objections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Florida Motor Lines was operating two buses transferring military selectees from Miami to Camp Blanding. Appellee was a passenger on one bus…
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 Common Carrier Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee recovered a $15,000.00 judgment for personal injuries sustained while riding as a passenger on appellant’s bus.
The questions deserving comment presented on this appeal relate to the charge of the court; the receipt in evidence of photographs portraying the appearance of the buses after the collision and the amount of the verdict.
Appellant, a common carrier, was operating two buses in transferring selectees from Miami to Camp Blanding. Appellee was a passenger on one of the buses that had come to a stop for a traffic light whereupon appellant’s second bus ran into the bus in which appellee was riding causing a back injury which has caused and will continue to cause him great pain and substantial permanent disability.
*839The declaration makes claim for a new and independent injury whereas the pleas of defendant are that of not guilty and that the injury, if any, was that of a pre-existing injury. In keeping with these pleadings the evidence was submitted and among other charges the court instructed the jury as follows:
“If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the bus collision the plaintiff was suffering from physical weakness or predisposition of an injury to his back by reason of his 1943 accident, and that he sustained injuries in the bus collision which aggravated the plaintiff’s preexisting condition, the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the injuries consequent upon such collision providing, of course, that you further find that the injuries, if any, sustained in the bus collision were the proximate result of the defendant’s negligence.”
This charge is complained of by appellant on the ground that it does not conform to the allegations in the declaration. It was evidently given to submit the defendant’s theory on the case to the jury. Furthermore, we fail to see wherein the appellant was harmed by the instruction. See Hamblen v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91, 172 So. 694; Campbell v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 137 Cal. 565, 70 Pac. 624.
We find no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs in evidence. Considering the age, previous earning, power and extent of injury the verdict of the jury is not excessive.
Finding no merit in any other question, the judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank v. Fuchs, 137 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…accident. These would be indicative of the speed of the vehicles. The courts have held many times that photographs may show force and impact. City of Miami v. McCorkle, 1941, 145 Fla. 109, 199 So. 575; Florida Motor Lines Corporation v. Wood, 1946, 156 Fla. 838, 24 So. 2d 581; Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So. 2d 124; 8Fla.L.Rev. 191. The [*849] appellate courts have held that juries in a guest-statute case are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and trial judges have been…
Authorities Cited
- C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1937)