Live Oak, P. & G.R. Co. v. Miller

Decision Date13 June 1916
Citation72 So. 283,72 Fla. 8
PartiesLIVE OAK, P. & G. R. CO. v. MILLER.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

Action by Alonzo J. Miller against the Live Oak, Perry & Gulf Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where it appears that a plaintiff's injury was 'caused by his own negligence,' he cannot under the statute recover damages from a railroad company for such injury.

COUNSEL

[LIVE OAK P & GR CO V MILLER 72 So. 283(1916)] John F. Harrell, of Live Oak, for plaintiff in error.

Stafford Caldwell, of Live Oak, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding damages for personal injuries. Miller, who was a passenger, alighted from the defendant carrier's train while it was temporarily standing at a point a short distance before reaching the station at Live Oak, Fla. He was struck by the engine while walking on the defendant's track ahead of the train from which he alighted.

The statutes provide as follows:

'A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons, stock, or other property, by the running of the locomotives, or cars, or other machinery of such company or for damage done by any person in the employ and service of such company, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company.

No person shall recover damages from a railroad company for injury to himself or his property, where the same is done by his consent, or 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.'

Sections 3148, 3149, Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws of 1914.

The plaintiff's testimony contains the following:

'I got off the train and walked along the coach and stepped over in between the two tracks, and I came on down the road. The Coast Line and the Live Oak, Perry & Gulf run parallel, and I came in between those two tracks. When I got near the crossing of Duval street, I decided to go across, to cross the road; I had some little business to attend to and, of course, I expected to hurry and attend to that little item of business; I intended to go across to Rodger's over there and come down. I don't know how many steps--I did not go directly across the road though, because I stepped upon the road before I got to the crossing, and I walked somewhat in this manner; like this was the road; I stepped upon the cross-ties. I remember having walked upon the end of the cross-ties for some little distance, and probably, when the train struck me, I was just between the rails; rather think I was. I was making across the road. I had walked upon the end of the ties for a little piece, and was gradually going across; I don't know exactly what distance I went on the track, but I remember having walked on the track some little distance, perhaps several steps. I can remember taking several steps on the track. I was then struck by the engine and train. I suppose, of course, it knocked me semiunconscious. I was not fairly unconscious, because some little things that I slightly remember of; I don't know of course; I don't know where it threw me, but I know when I saw the train I endeavored to get off the track, and it struck me in the back. I was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Davis v. Scott
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1921
    ...cannot be recovered where the testimony shows that the employees exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to avoid injury. 72 So. 283; 70 So. 998. See 51 Fla. 304; 41 So. 70; 53 Fla. 375; 43 So. 235; 70 So. 437. The damages were not diminished in proportion to the amount of ......
  • Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1921
    ... ... 381, 83 So. 89; ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla. 246, ... 44 So. 247; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Smith, 53 Fla ... 375, 43 So. 235; [81 Fla. 517] Live Oak, P. & G. R. Co ... v. Miller, 72 Fla. 8, 72 So. 283; Tampa Electric ... ...
  • Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Good
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1920
    ... ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla. 246, ... 44 So. 247; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Tomberlin, 70 ... v. Bourquardez, 72 Fla. 161, 72 So. 668; Live Oak, ... P. & G. R. Co. v. Miller, 72 Fla. 8, 72 So. 283; ... Seaboard ... ...
  • Director General of Railroads v. Into
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1922
    ... ... 304, 41 So ... 70; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Miller, 53 Fla ... 246, 44 So. 247; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Smith, 53 ... 437; Louisville & N ... R. Co. v. Padgett, 71 Fla. 90, 70 So. 998; Live Oak, ... P. & G. R. Co. v. Miller, 72 Fla. 8, 72 So. 283; ... Tampa ... ...
  • 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