Lawson v. Loftin
Decision Date | 09 March 1945 |
Citation | 155 Fla. 685,21 So.2d 202 |
Parties | LAWSON v. LOFTIN et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Marshall C. wiseheart judge.
Carl T Hoffman, N. J. Durant, and Sam C. Matthews, all of Miami, for appellant.
Russell L Frink, of Jacksonville, and Loftin, Anderson, Scott, McCarthy & Preston and John H. Wahl, Jr., all of Miami, for appellees.
Appellant sued the appellee for damages resulting from an alleged injury received while appellant was a passenger for hire on appellee's railroad train.
The declaration alleges that 'the defendant', by their servants and employees, so negligently and carelessly operated said train and so negligently and carelessly failed to take the necessary precaution looking to the safety of the plaintiff, as a passenger, that the said car in which the plaintiff was riding, while at or near New Smyrna, Florida was by and through the negligence of the defendants, suddenly and without warning, jerked and jarred with such great and sudden violence that, as the proximate result thereof, the plaintiff was violently thrown upon and against the metal arm of a chair in said ladies' room; and as the proximate result of the defendant's said negligence the plaintiff's coccyx was fractured, and from thence the plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer excruciating pain in body and in mind, and great shock to her nervous system; and the said injuries complained of are permanent; and has lost and will continue to lose considerable time from her employment.'
Plea of not guilty was filed and trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, appellee here.
Appellant poses three questions for our consideration as follows:
'First Question: In view of chapter 768.05, F.S.A., can a verdict for a defendant railroad be upheld, when the railroad has failed to make it appear that their agents had exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence with regard to its duties owing to a passenger?
'Second Question: In view of chapter 768.05, F.S.A., where the plaintiff proves that she has been injured, while a passenger upon a railroad train, is it proper for the court to charge the jury that the burden of proving negligence is upon the plaintiff?
'Third Question: Where a person has been injured while a passenger upon a railroad train, and such passenger has been requested by the railroad's agents to submit to an examination by a physician of their choice, are the statements made to the passenger concerning his or her condition by the physician admissible in evidence against the railroad?'
Question 1 as stated does not find foundation in the record because the record shows the following stipulation presented during the trial:
witness M. F. Hardin were present and testified, his evidence would be to the following effect:
witness F. A. Crawford were present to testify, his evidence would be as follows:
"This stipulation shall not constitute any admission by the plaintiff that the said testimony is true."
Plaintiff had testified that at the time and place mentioned in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Musachia v. Terry
...thereof so that a reviewing court may determine what was excluded and whether the exclusion was prejudicial. See Lawson v. Loftin, 155 Fla. 685, 21 So.2d 202, 204; Ritter's Hotel, Inc. v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171, 194 So. 322, 323; Green v. Hood, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 223, 226; Conrad, Mo......
-
Evansville City Coach Lines v. Roger, 18073
...Rys. Co., 1933, 53 R.I. 122, 164 A. 513; Hanley v. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & L. Co., 1935, 220 Wis. 288, 263 N.W. 638; Lawson v. Loftin, 1945, 155 Fla. 685, 21 So.2d 202; Paul v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 1932, 46 S.W.2d 910; Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Travis, Tex.Civ.App., 19......
-
Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, S.P.A.
...for appellate review by a proffer of the excluded testimony, and the error, if any, was entirely harmless. See Lawson v. Loftin, 155 Fla. 685, 688, 21 So.2d 202, 204 (1945); Crawford v. Shivashankar, 474 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605, 607-08 (Fla. 3d D......
-
Davis v. Loftin
...East Coast Ry. Co. v. Smith, 61 Fla. 218, 55 So. 871; Colle v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 153 Fla. 258, 14 So.2d 422; Lawson v. Loftin, 155 Fla. 685, 21 So.2d 202. If perhaps the plaintiff had been content to stop with such proof, initially, and had not gone further, there might be some s......