Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gornto

• Decision Date: 07 February 1925
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. GORNTO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

103 So. 117

89 Fla. 97

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. GORNTO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

February 7, 1925

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.

Action by Gordon L. Gornto against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Driver of automobile attempting to cross in front of approaching train cannot recover. Where, in an action for damage resulting from a collision of an automobile with a moving train at a prominent public crossing, it appears from the evidence that the person sustaining the injury alleged, who was driving the automobile and who was in possession of his normal faculties, failed to exercise the degree of prudence which the known risks required, and negligently attempted to pass over such crossing, in front of a rapidly approaching train, there can be no recovery by him.

COUNSEL

Kelly & Sutton, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Pat Whitaker and Tom. P. Whitaker, both of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WEST J.

This is an action to recover from the defendant railroad company damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of a collision between an automobile, owned and driven by plaintiff, and a train, owned and operated by defendant. The collision occurred at a crossing of a public highway and a track of defendant's line of railroad. The damages alleged are the destruction of plaintiff's automobile and personal injury sustained by him, with expenses incident to treatment by a physician for such injury. Pleas of not guilty and of contributory negligence were interposed, and upon the issues made the case was tried. The verdict was for plaintiff for $1,200, but upon motion for new trial and in compliance with the court's order there was a remittitur of $400 and judgment was entered accordingly.

Upon consideration of the assignments of error, we have reached the conclusion that under the facts proved the case is within the rule announced in cases of this kind that where the evidence affirmatively shows that the person sustaining the damages alleged failed to exercise the degree of prudence which the known risks require, but negligently attempted to pass over a crossing in front of a rapidly approaching train there can be no recovery.

The accident occurred in the daytime. It was a prominent and frequently used crossing. The plaintiff, who was ...