Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 12 January 1914
• Citation: 66 Fla. 589,64 So. 274
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. HAYES.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

64 So. 274

66 Fla. 589

FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. HAYES.

Florida Supreme Court

January 12, 1914

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.

Action by H. W. Hayes against the Florida East Coast Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In an action against a railroad company for the wrongful death of a passenger, a declaration containing definite allegations showing the relation of passenger and carrier between the deceased and the defendant, with allegations of the negligence of the defendant in running its train, the particular acts of negligence that caused the death being stated so that an issue may be made thereon for trial, is sufficient.

The provision of section 3147 of the General Statutes authorizing a recovery by the father for the mental pain and suffering by the mother because of the wrongful death of their minor child, is not clearly in excess of the legislative power.

Where there is some substantial evidence to support a verdict for one party, a verdict for the other party should not be directed by the court on the ground that a preponderance of the evidence is favorable to the movant.

The considerations and legal principles that guide the judicial discretion in directing a verdict and in granting a new trial on the evidence are not the same.

The rule established by the statute is that, if no evidence is introduced upon which a jury may lawfully find a verdict for one party, a direction may be given to find for the opposite party, but the judge should never direct a verdict for one party, unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained.

In all cases where there is room for difference of opinion between reasonable men as to the existence of facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or when there is room for such difference as to the inferences which might be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury for their finding, as it is their conclusion, in such cases, that should prevail, and not the views of the judge.

The duty devolving upon the court in reference to directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and should be cautiously exercised.

The statute requires the appellate court to review rulings on motions for new trial, when properly presented on writ of error.

After a verdict is rendered which is supported by substantial legal evidence, the trial court may properly grant a motion for new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence when there is just ground for belief that the jury acted through prejudice, passion, mistake, or any other cause which properly should not control them--i. e., that the jury were not governed by the evidence, or where it appears to the court that there is difficulty in reconciling the verdict with the justice of the case and the manifest weight of the evidence.

Where there is conflicting evidence on the issues made, and the verdict is not manifestly against the weight of evidence, the court should not interfere and set aside the verdict of a jury.

A preponderance of the evidence means the probative weight influence, force, or power of the evidence as adduced, considered separately and collectively with reference to the issue.

Where the probative force and weight of the testimony and of the circumstances in evidence do not so preponderate against the verdict as to indicate that the jury were not governed by the evidence, the appellate court will not set aside the verdict on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

COUNSEL Alex St. Clair-Abrams, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

A. H. King, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A judgment for the plaintiff rendered in this cause was reversed. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1, 60 So. 792.

The action is brought under section 3147 of the General Statutes of 1906, which gives a right of action for the wrongful death of a minor child, and authorizes a recovery by the father of damages for the loss of service of his minor child, and also 'such sum for the mental pain and suffering of the parent or parents as the jury may assess.' In three separate counts the declaration alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff's minor son, aged 13 years, was a passenger on the defendant railroad company's train; that the defendant stopped its train 'suddenly and violently in a careless manner, thereby throwing deceased down from and under said train, by reason whereof deceased was then and thereby instantly killed, by and through the negligence of the defendant in running its said train.' (2) That owing to the crowded condition of the coaches the deceased and a large number of passengers were compelled by defendant's negligence to ride on the platform and step of the coaches; that defendant accepted deceased as a passenger on the platform and steps of one of the coaches; that said train was checked 'suddenly and violently, thereby causing said train to jolt and surge, whereby deceased was thrown off and down from and under said train and instantly killed by the negligence of defendant in running its said train.' (3) 'That the passengers, being crowded, as alleged, on the platform and steps of said coach on which deceased was riding, were caused to surge and push against deceased, by reason whereof deceased was forced off of and down from and under said coach and instantly killed by the negligence of defendant in the running of said train. Damages in $50,000 were claimed in each count. A demurrer to the several counts was overruled, and a plea of not guilty and special pleas were filed, and issue joined thereon. A motion for compulsory amendment of the first count so as to eliminate a claim of damages for the mother of the deceased, on the ground that such a recovery is illegal, was denied. A motion for a directed verdict for the defendant on the ground that the preponderance of the evidence shows the defendant to be entitled to a verdict was denied, exceptions being duly noted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in $12,500 were rendered. A motion for new trial was denied, and the defendant took writ of error.

The statute (section 3148) provides that the 'railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons * * * by the running of the locomotives or cars, or other machinery of such company, * * * unless the company shall make it appear that its agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence.' 'No person shall recover damages from a railroad company for injury to himself * * * when the same is * * * caused by his own negligence.' 'If the complainant and the agents of the company are both at fault, the former may recover, but the damages shall be diminished or increased by the jury in proportion to the amount of default attributable to him.'

The declaration contains statements showing the relation of passenger and carrier between the deceased and the defendant, with allegations of the negligence of the defendant in running the train, the particular acts of negligence that caused the death being stated, so that an issue may be made thereon for trial. This satisfies the essential requirements of a declaration in this class of cases, and the demurrer was properly overruled. Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 So. 618.

As it cannot be said that the provision of the statute authorizing a recovery by the father of damages for the mental pain and...