Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Hamlett

• Decision Date: 06 June 1921
• Citation: 81 Fla. 872,89 So. 337
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. HAMLETT.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

89 So. 337

81 Fla. 872

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. HAMLETT.

Florida Supreme Court

June 6, 1921

Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. K. Reaves, Judge.

Action by S. Edgar Hamlett against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

What is sufficient to allege in passenger's action for injuries sufficient to allege ultimate facts showing relation of passenger and carrier. In an action by a passenger for injuries received by the operation of a railroad train, it is in general sufficient to allege ultimate facts showing that the relation of passenger and carrier existed, and that the defendant negligently did or omitted the act or acts that proximately caused or contributed to causing the injury as stated, the specific fact that actually caused the injury being duly alleged so that a definite issue may be presented for trial.

Presumption of negligence need not be charged where plaintiff clearly proves negligence alleged. In an action under the statute for damage done by the running of a train of a railroad company where the plaintiff clearly proves the negligence alleged the statutory presumption is then superfluous, and it need not be given in the charge.

Effect of presumption of negligence on part of railroad company stated. Where the statutory presumption of negligence is applicable to put upon the defendant railroad company the burden of proving due care and diligence, the presumption does not outweigh proofs that the employees of the defendant company did in fact use due care in the premises; but the question of liability is to be determined by a proper consideration of all the evidence adduced under appropriate charges as to the law.

Passengers on mixed train do not take risks from negligent operation. While passengers take the risks properly incident to voluntary travel on a mixed passenger and freight train, yet they do not take risks that are imposed by negligent operation; and if such a train is so operated as to unduly or unreasonably cause sudden violent movements and stops, that injure passengers while they are exercising the privileges they are entitled to as such passengers, the company may be liable in damages for injuries proximately resulting from such negligent operation.

Passenger on train need not remain in seat at all times, and may recover if injured by unduly violent stops or movements of car. A passenger on a railroad train is not required to remain in his seat at all times during the transit; and if in the exercise of due prudence, he stands or moves about in the car, and while so standing or moving is injured by unduly violent stops or movements of the car in its operation, he may recover reasonably compensatory damages.

Where evidence sufficient to support verdict for damages in passenger's action for injuries, judgment will be affirmed. Where there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that the car on which plaintiff was a passenger was suddenly and with great and unusual violence moved in a manner substantially as alleged in the declaration, and the evidence of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a proximate result of the violent impact is sufficient to support the amount of damages awarded by the verdict, the judgment will be affirmed.

COUNSEL

W. A. Carter, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. G. King and C. E. Spear, both of St. Petersburg, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The declaration herein alleges that, while the plaintiff was being transported as a passenger on defendant's railroad train, 'the coach in which plaintiff was riding was, by the employees of the defendant, left standing on said track. And while this plaintiff was occupying said car, and in the part thereof provided for passengers while riding thereon, the defendant, by their servants and employees, so negligently and carelessly operated said train and so negligently and carelessly failed to take the necessary precaution looking to the safety of said train and its occupants, that the said car in which said plaintiff was riding, by and through the negligence of the defendant, was suddenly and without warning jarred, bumped, and struck, with such great and sudden violence that, by the impact thereof and the sudden starting of said car, the plaintiff was thereby violently thrown upon and against a portion of said car, thereby inflicting upon the plaintiff grievous injuries to his arms, chest, neck, spine, sides, and ribs, and from thence up to the present time has suffered excruciating pain, being confined to his bed for a considerable portion of the time, and suffering a great shock to his nervous system; and that the injuries complained of are permanent. That, in addition to said injuries hereinbefore complained of, the plaintiff has been compelled to spend a large sum of money for physician's services, nursing, and medicines in an effort to rid himself of said injuries, without avail, and has been barred since the infliction of said injuries, without avail, from attending to his business and avocation.

'By reason of the injuries hereinbefore alleged, he has been damaged in the sum of $5,000.'

There was a plea of not guilty, and two special pleas averring in effect that the plaintiff became a passenger well knowing that the train was operated for the transportation of both freight and passengers, and that in so doing the plaintiff assumed all the...