Austin v. State
| Decision Date | 26 February 1931 |
| Citation | 101 Fla. 990,132 So. 491 |
| Parties | AUSTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Dewal County; James M. Peeler Judge.
C. A Austin was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where one is convicted of manslaughter under an indictment alleging that death resulted by reason of the negligent act or omission of the accused, and it appears that the accused had left undone nothing that a reasonably prudent and cautious man would have done under the circumstances, and that he had done nothing which a reasonably prudent and cautious man would not have done under the circumstances, he will not be held criminally liable for death caused by such alleged negligence.
No criminal liability attaches where circumstances and conditions beyond the control of the accused cause him against his will to be in a position and under conditions which result in the death of another.
Ion L. Farris, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter for the alleged wrongful death of a child.
The information charged in effect that the death of the child was caused by the negligent act of the accused in leaving a truck and trailer loaded with logs on the public highway in the nighttime without lights, and that, by reason of the truck and trailer being so left on the road in the nighttime without lights, an automobile driven by another person and in which the child was riding as a passenger ran into the rear end of the trailer and load of logs, resulting in the death of the child.
Section 1021, R. G. S., section 1294, C. G. L., provides, amongst other things, as follows:
'Every motor vehicle * * * shall, during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise display at least two lighted lamps on the front and one on the rear of such vehicle.'
Section 1319, C. G. L., provides as follows:
Section 1320, C. G. L., provides as follows:
Section 7793, C. G. L., provides as follows:
'Any person convicted of the violation of any of the provisions of sections 1318-1323, relating to reckless driving, speed, motor lights, stopping on road, etc., shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The above appear to be the statutory provisions which would have bearing on this case. One of the questions before us for determination is whether or not under the evidence the accused is guilty of such negligence as would cause him to be criminally responsible for the death of the child.
The undisputed evidence is that Austin, a young white man of good character and moral habits, was engaged in the lawful business of hauling logs from outside the city of Jacksonville to a mill in the city of Jacksonville; that on the afternoon of the fatal accident, while he was proceeding toward the mill with a load of logs on his truck and trailer, he had a tire blow-out on his truck. He pulled off of the highway as far as he could get out of it at that place without going into the ditch. This left his motor vehicle in the road far enough to violate section 1320, supra, and to cause him to be amenable to prosecution under section 7793, supra. We do not think that he should have been required to drive his motor vehicle into the ditch because of the misfortune that overtook him at a place where the road had not been built wide enough for the driver of a vehicle to comply with section 1320, supra, without going into the ditch.
The tire blow-out occurred early in the afternoon. The accused immediately went to a place some distance away where he procured another tire and tube, brought it back, and put it on the truck before night. When he returned to the truck, he found another tire down, which it was necessary for him to pump up. During the afternoon there had been a very heavy rain. The truck was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State
...negligence is substituted therefore...." (emphasis supplied)); Pitts v. State, 132 Fla. 812, 182 So. 234 (1938); Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 993, 132 So. 491, 493 (1931) (culpable negligence takes the place of criminal intent); Lassiter v. State, 98 Fla. 370, 123 So. 735 (1929); Anthony ......
-
Baker v. State
...the victim's death. See, e. g., Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976); Miller v. State, 75 So.2d 312 (Fla.1954); Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 132 So. 491 (1931); Peel v. State, 291 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA), Cert. denied, 298 So.2d 164 (Fla.1974). And it is said in defense of the DWI m......
-
Jackson v. State
...negligence before (such) a verdict will be permitted to stand.' (Emphasis supplied.)6 Franklin v. State, supra, note 2.7 Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 132 So. 491.8 Preston v. State, Fla., 56 So.2d 543.9 Smith v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 303; Clowney v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 316; ......
-
McDougal v. State, 5757
...such killing shall not be justifiable or excusable homicide nor murder * * * shall be deemed manslaughter * * *.'3 Thus in Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990, 132 So. 491, the Court said: 'We do not think that criminal liability attaches where circumstances and conditions beyond the control of t......