Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS; SEBRING |
| Citation | 53 So.2d 777 |
| Parties | GOFF v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. |
| Decision Date | 03 August 1951 |
Page 777
v.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al.
Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Anderson, Fields & Ward, Tampa, for appellant.
Charles Cook Howell, Wilmington, N.C., and LeRoy Allen, Tampa for appellees.
Page 778
ROBERTS, Justice.
We here review a summary judgment entered by the court below in favor of defendant-appellees in a suit by plaintiff-appellant to recover for her injuries sustained in a railroad crossing accident. It appears from affidavits filed in support of its motion for summary judgment by the defendant railroad company that the automobile in which plaintiff was a guest passenger struck the rear of the first car behind the engine of defendant's train with such force as to derail such car; and that, as shown by the tire skid marks of the automobile, the tires had skidded approximately 114 feet before colliding with the train. The lower court in entering summary judgment declared therein that 'While a passenger in a car is not chargeable with the contributory negligence of the driver, it is apparent that there is no actionable negligence on the part of the railroad in this case, but that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of said car in failing to have his car under proper control to be able to stop in time to avoid this collision.'
The plaintiff had charged that the defendants 'negligently failed to give proper signals to notify the plaintiff of the approach of said train,' and that the defendant railroad company 'negligently failed to provide appropriate signals at the crossing, and negligently permitted a fairly dense growth of trees and bushes to grow up on top of the embankment on either side of the tract so that the train was partially hidden from the view of automobile operators approaching the crossing,' as a direct result of which, it was alleged, the plaintiff was injured. In support of these allegations and in resistance to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff's affidavit was filed, in which she stated that 'the train whistle was not blown to sound a warning of its approach to the crossing until it was almost upon the crossing and too late to notify the occupants of the automobile of its approach to the crossing; that the approach of the train to the crossing was hidden from the road might of way upon which the said automobile was being driven by a fairly dense growth of trees, weeds and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co. v. Church, No. 14759
...condition was the sole proximate cause of the injury. 2 Florida cases which may be consulted are Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Martin, 56 So.2d 509; Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 56 So.2d 905; Horton v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.,......
-
Webster v. CSX Transportation, No. 97-2039.
...of earlier Florida cases suggests that the statutes often may have been honored in the breach, but, in Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1951), the court recognized that a strict application of the standing train doctrine would negate the comparative negligence The Goff......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Boone
...were sufficiently in dispute that a jury decision on the problem was necessitated. See Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 777. Many of the alleged facts now before us were mentioned in our earlier The case arose out of a collision between a moving freight train of the At......
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Webster, No. SC95122.
...Instead it began to consider the allegations of special circumstances previously deemed irrelevant. In Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777, 779 (Fla.1951), this Court distinguished Brown on the grounds that the accident involved a car and a train simultaneously approaching a In......
-
Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co. v. Church, No. 14759
...condition was the sole proximate cause of the injury. 2 Florida cases which may be consulted are Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Martin, 56 So.2d 509; Poindexter v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 56 So.2d 905; Horton v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.,......
-
Webster v. CSX Transportation, No. 97-2039.
...of earlier Florida cases suggests that the statutes often may have been honored in the breach, but, in Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777 (Fla. 1951), the court recognized that a strict application of the standing train doctrine would negate the comparative negligence The Goff......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Boone
...were sufficiently in dispute that a jury decision on the problem was necessitated. See Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 777. Many of the alleged facts now before us were mentioned in our earlier The case arose out of a collision between a moving freight train of the At......
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Webster, No. SC95122.
...Instead it began to consider the allegations of special circumstances previously deemed irrelevant. In Goff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 So.2d 777, 779 (Fla.1951), this Court distinguished Brown on the grounds that the accident involved a car and a train simultaneously approaching a In......