Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Weir

• Decision Date: 08 May 1912
• Citation: 58 So. 641,63 Fla. 74
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. WEIR.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

58 So. 641

63 Fla. 74

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. WEIR.

Florida Supreme Court

May 8, 1912

On Rehearing, June 4, 1912.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.

Action by T. M. Weir against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

While the operation of an unregistered motor vehicle upon the public highways of the state is made unlawful, the statute does not provide that a failure to comply with its provisions will deprive the owner of a motor vehicle of a right to recover damages for an injury to an unlicensed vehicle caused by the negligence of another, and it does not modify the statutory provisions relative the the liability of railroad companies for negligent injuries to others.

If a person's unlawful act contributes proximately to his own injury, he may not recover damages of another for a negligent participation in that injury; but if an unlawful act of an injured party has no causal relation to his injury that proximately results from another's mere negligence, a recovery may be had under the principles of the common law if the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence.

The principles of the common law require the operators of railroad trains and road vehicles to exercise such care prudence, and caution as the circumstances of a crossing reasonably demand of each of them.

The drivers of vehicles on public highways are required by law to exercise due care, and to have the vehicles in control on approaching a railroad grade crossing, and to use reasonable ordinary care to discover approaching trains.

Where the owner of an automobile valued at $1,600 is operating it at 20 miles an hour on a country road at a point where it crosses a railroad track of which crossing the owner knew and notice of the approach of a train was not given by the bell or whistle of the engine, but the approach of the train could have been seen several hundred yards away, and the automobile was not stopped before it got upon the railroad track on the side of the road and was struck and destroyed by the engine, a judgment for $1,000 damages to the automobile will be reversed, since the damages were not apportioned by the jury in proportion to the amount of default attributable to the plaintiff as required by the statute.

COUNSEL

Sparkman & Carter, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

James F. Glen and W. F. Himes, both of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

A judgment for $1,000 damages was obtained against the railroad company for the loss of an automobile, valued at $1,600, that was struck by the engine of a train alleged to have been engligently operated at a country road crossing, and the defendant took writ of error. There was a plea of not guilty and also two special pleas, averring that the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of chapter 5437, Acts of 1905, that all persons owning or operating a motor vehicle shall register the same and pay a license therefor, that no person shall operate upon the public highways a motor vehicle required to be registered without complying with the statute, and making a violation of the statute a criminal offense. The court sustained demurrers to the two special pleas, and assignments of error are predicated thereon and argued here upon the theory that the pleas were not subject to the demurrers because under the statute referred to an unregistered automobile is a trespasser upon the public roads of Florida, and if it is damaged by collision or otherwise the owner cannot recover damages therefor, unless the injury is caused by willful or gross negligence.

While the operation of an unregistered motor vehicle upon the public highways of the state is made unlawful, the statute does not provide that a failure to comply with its provisions will deprive the owner of a motor vehicle of a right to recover damages for an injury to an unlicensed vehicle caused by the negligence of another, and it does not modify the statutory provisions relative to the liability of railroad companies for negligent injuries to others. The license feature of the statute is a revenue measure, and there is no provision for examining the operators of motor vehicles to test their efficiency.

In doing an unlawful act a person is not denied the rights and protection accorded by the law. If a person's unlawful act contributes proximately to his own injury, he may not recover damages of another for a negligent participation in that injury; but if an unlawful act of an injured party has no causal relation to his injury that proximately results from another's mere negligence, a recovery may be had under the principles of the common law, if the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence. The statutes do not provide expressly or by implication that no recovery shall be had for a negligent injury to an unlicensed motor vehicle being...