Coon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Decision Date | 27 July 1936 |
Citation | 171 So. 207,125 Fla. 490 |
Parties | COON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1936.
Supplemental Opinion Nov. 18, 1936.
En Banc.Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Henry N. Sandler Judge.
Action by J. M. Coon against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Supplemental Opinion.
COUNSEL Altman & Cooper, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
T Paine Kelly, of Tampa, for defendant in error.
J. M Coon brought an action at law against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, under section 7049, C.G.L., for the wrongful death of Tressor Lee Coon, plaintiff's minor son.
The first count of the amended declaration alleged in substance that the defendant as a common carrier was on May 26, 1933 operating a steam surface railroad over a line of track in Plant City, Hillsborough county, Fla., about one-eighth of a mile east of its station crossing Maryland avenue; that about 6:20 a. m. on that day Tressor Lee Coon plaintiff's minor son, lawfully drove a Model T Ford along Maryland avenue and onto defendant's track; and that defendant, its agents, servants, and employees, by their negligent conduct propelled the locomotive against Tressor Lee Coon, resulting in his death.
The second count of the amended declaration alleged in substance that the defendant was negligent in allowing vegetation, weeds, grass, and underbrush to grow up to its tracks on the right of way, obstructing the view of the railroad; that defendant was negligent in allowing vines to obscure the only sign giving warning to those using this particular street of an approach to the crossing; that defendant was negligent in allowing corn to grow on its right of way on both sides of its tracks so that the approaching train was obscured by the corn and a house until Tressor Lee Coon was so close on the train it was impossible to stop and avoid the collision.
The fourth count of the amended declaration alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to give the usual or proper signal or warning.
The fifth count of the amended declaration alleged that defendant operated its train at a dangerous and excessive rate of speed, proximately resulting in the death of Tressor Lee Coon.
The amended third count of the amended declaration alleged that the defendant was negligent in operating its train through the city of Plant City at a rate of speed of 25 to 35 miles per hour, in violation of an ordinance of the city of Plant City requiring trains to pass through the city of Plant City at a rate of speed not greater than ten miles per hour.
To every count of the declaration, the defendant filed the following plea of puis darrien continuance:
To this plea puis darrien continuance, plaintiff demurred on the following grounds:
The court overruled plaintiff's demurrer to the plea of puis darrien continuance; and because plaintiff elected to abide by his demurrer, final judgment upon demurrer was entered in favor of defendant.
From this final judgment plaintiff took writ of error.
The sole question raised by this writ of error is whether or not, in an action brought by an administrator for the wrongful death of his minor intestate, judgment rendered therein in favor of defendant is a bar to an action by the father of the deceased infant for the wrongful death of the latter; the father being also the administrator.
Our statute provides that when there is no widow or husband, as the case may be, or minor child or children, or any dependent of deceased, the administrator or executor, as the case may be, of the deceased, may maintain an action for the wrongful death of decedent. Section 7048, C.G.L.
Under this section and section 7047, C.G.L., J. M. Coon brought an action in the circuit court for Hillsborough county to recover for the wrongful death of his minor intestate. The case was transferred to the Federal District Court, and judgment was there rendered in favor of defendant. In the case of Fla. East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 So. 504, 7 A.L.R. 1310, we said in limiting the scope of the action and in laying down the rule as to damages which an administrator may recover under section 7048, C.G.L.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ake v. Birnbaum
... ... We have held, ... however, in Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 67 ... Fla. 101, 64 So. 504, 7 A.L.R. 1310, 'Under the ... v. Tinsley, 115 Fla ... 650, 654, 155 So. 850; Coon v. Atlantic Coast Line R ... Co., 125 Fla. 240, 171 So. 207; Id., 125 ... ...
-
Klepper v. Breslin
...supra. As a matter of fact, by logical inference other decisions appear to sustain the ruling. In the case of Coon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 125 Fla. 490, 171 So. 207, this Court held that the damages aspect of the statute should be sustained on the theory that where the father who was......
-
Smith v. Preis
...disclosed on this record.' See also the somewhat comparable factual situations in Gibson v. Solomon, supra, and Coon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 125 Fla. 240, 171 So. 207. Respondent relies on In re Thomasson's Estate, supra; In re Franz' Estate, Mo., 372 S.W.2d 885; Rossi v. Davis, 345 ......
-
Latimer v. Sears Roebuck and Company, 18277.
...be joined in the same suit. Pensacola Electric Co. v. Soderlind, 1910, 60 Fla. 164, 53 So. 722. See also Coon v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 1936, 125 Fla. 490, 171 So. 207. In Klepper v. Breslin, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 587, involving an action under Section 768.03, the court denied recov......