Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Harrison
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | BROWNE, C.J. |
| Citation | 83 So. 89,78 Fla. 381 |
| Decision Date | 18 August 1919 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. HARRISON. |
83 So. 89
78 Fla. 381
LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
v.
HARRISON.
Florida Supreme Court
August 18, 1919
Error to Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Action by W. W. Harrison against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Syllabus by the Court
SYLLABUS
When the driver of an automobile attempts to cross a railroad track at a road crossing and has ample time to do so, but his engine chokes down and the automobile stops upon the railroad track, and it is not alleged in the declaration that the choking down of the engine was caused by the defective condition of the railroad crossing, the proximate cause of the accident is the stopping of the automobile, and the railroad is not guilty of negligence in not assuming that it would break down and stop on its track, provided that when the railroad employés saw that it had stopped on the track they at once did everything in their power to stop the train.
An engineer in charge of the locomotive of a train has the right to presume that an automobile crossing the railroad track a quarter of a mile ahead of his train will be over and away in ample time before his train reaches the crossing, and he is not called upon to presume that the automobile would choke down and stop on the track.
COUNSEL [78 Fla. 382] R. A. McGeachy, of Milton, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Clark, of Milton, for defendant in error.
OPINION
BROWNE, C.J.
The defendant in error recovered damages from the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for the destruction of his automobile by the plaintiff in error's train. He undertook to cross the railroad track about a quarter of a mile from a curve. When he got on the track his engine choked and his car stopped. He testified in part as follows:
'As I drove up my wheels jumped down in the crossing, my car choked down, I looked around, and the train was approaching. At the moment my engine choked the train wasn't quite a quarter (1/4) of a mile from me; it was turning the curve when I noticed it. In approaching the railroad with my car I was looking around; yes, sir. I was noticing. I did not see any car approaching, and the whistle did not blow at all. Just as it hit the car it blowed, maybe a minute before it hit it, 'Toot toot.' When I looked around and seen there was a young lady in the car, I said, 'Look out; get out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
...Odom & Gardner, for appellant. The stalling of the car was the proximate cause of this accident. L. & N. R. Co. v. Harrison (Fla.), 83 So. 89; Barrett v. U. S. R. R. Administration, 194 N.W. 223. Mr. Steen, witness for plaintiff, contends that the whistle was not blown, and the bell......
-
Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co.
...has no right to recover. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Thompson, 57 Fla. 155, 48 So. 750; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 78 Fla. 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. ......
-
Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., No. 6617.
...in not guarding against the possibility of the automobile breaking down when on its track." Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Harrison, 78 Fla. 381, 83 So. 89, In Egley v. S. A. L. R. Co., 84 Fla. 147, 93 So. 170, 171, the judgment of the court was "affirmed, on the authority of the S......
-
Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.
...directions to the circuit court to reinstate the cause and rule upon the grounds of the demurrer not raising constitutional questions. [78 Fla. 381] PER CURIAM. The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion, prepared under chapter 7837, Acts of 191......
-
Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
...Odom & Gardner, for appellant. The stalling of the car was the proximate cause of this accident. L. & N. R. Co. v. Harrison (Fla.), 83 So. 89; Barrett v. U. S. R. R. Administration, 194 N.W. 223. Mr. Steen, witness for plaintiff, contends that the whistle was not blown, and the bell......
-
Stevens v. Tampa Electric Co.
...has no right to recover. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Thompson, 57 Fla. 155, 48 So. 750; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 78 Fla. 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. ......
-
Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., No. 6617.
...in not guarding against the possibility of the automobile breaking down when on its track." Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Harrison, 78 Fla. 381, 83 So. 89, In Egley v. S. A. L. R. Co., 84 Fla. 147, 93 So. 170, 171, the judgment of the court was "affirmed, on the authority of the S......
-
Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.
...directions to the circuit court to reinstate the cause and rule upon the grounds of the demurrer not raising constitutional questions. [78 Fla. 381] PER CURIAM. The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion, prepared under chapter 7837, Acts of 191......