Lawson v. Loftin

Decision Date09 March 1945
Citation155 Fla. 685,21 So.2d 202
PartiesLAWSON v. LOFTIN et al.
CourtFlorida 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.

BUFORD, Justice.

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:

'1. That if defendants' witness M. F. Hardin were present and testified, his evidence would be to the following effect: 'That on December 14, 1943, he was employed by the defendants as a hostler in which position it was his duty to operate locomotives between the engine house at New Smyrna, Florida, and the station there and to couple such locomotives to trains from which other locomotives had been detached. That on December 13, 1943, in the performance of such duties he operated the locomotive which was attached at New Smyrna Florida, to the train involved in this suit, and that there was no rough handling which would cause a violent jerk or jar to the train.

'2. That if defendants' witness F. A. Crawford were present to testify, his evidence would be as follows:

"That he was employed by the defendants as baggage master on the train involved in this suit on December 14, 1943, and when the train reached and stopped at New Smyrna, Florida, he was in the baggage car which was the third car of the train behind the locomotive. That when the locomotive which pulled the train into New Smyrna was detached, there was no rough handling which violently jerked or jarred the train, and that when another locomotive was attached to the train a few minutes later there was no rough handling which violently jerked or jarred the train. That at no time while the train was standing in the New Smyrna station after it arrived and before it left that point, was the train jerked or jarred.

"Miami, Florida, July 10, 1944.

"(And then it is signed)

"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
8 cases
  • Musachia v. Terry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 8, 1962
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 19, 1951
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 8, 1987
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 29, 1954
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT