Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Schumacher

• Decision Date: 16 January 1912
• Citation: 63 Fla. 137,57 So. 603
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST R. CO. v. SCHUMACHER et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

57 So. 603

63 Fla. 137

FLORIDA EAST COAST R. CO. v. SCHUMACHER et al.

Florida Supreme Court

January 16, 1912

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1912.

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; R. M. Call, Judge,

Action by Effie W. Schumacher and another against the Florida East Coast Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Modified.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The statute authorizes the recovery of compensation 'for any damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of' a train of a railroad company; and where punitive damages are erroneously allowed in a verdict and judgment, a remittitur may in a proper case be ordered.

COUNSEL Alex. St. Clair Abrams, A. V. S. Smith, and R E. Stillman, for plaintiff in error.

C. H North and Bryan & Bryan, for defendants in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In an action for personal injuries to the wife, caused by the running of a railroad train, the verdict and judgment awarded $800 to the husband for expenses incurred on account of the injury to the wife, and also $8,200 to the wife. It is conceded that the latter amount included punitive damages and this is assigned and urged as error.

The statute authorizes the recovery of compensation 'for any damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of' a railroad company's train. Allegations in the declaration that the railroad company, through its servants and agents, was 'wantonly' negligent, are not sustained by the evidence. Consequently punitive damages were erroneously allowed.

There was no evidence upon which to base a charge for exemplary damages. There was nothing to show a malicious or intentional injury inflicted upon plaintiff, neither was there any evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty 'of negligence of so gross and flagrant a character as to evince reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of those exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or to show wantonness and recklessness, or reckless indifference to the rights of others, equivalent to an intentional violation of them, which is necessary to justify a jury in inflicting punitive damages.' Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Mooney, 40 Fla. 17, text 34, 24 So. 148; Florida South. Ry. Co. v. Hirst, 30 Fla. 1, 11 So. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17; Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 So. 714; Dowling Lumber Co. v. King, 57 So. 337, decided at June term, 1911.

The liability of the railroad company for compensatory damages is admitted, and both parties to the action request this court to order a remittitur...