Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., s. R--217

• Decision Date: 07 August 1973
• Docket Number: R--220,Nos. R--217,s. R--217
• Citation: 281 So.2d 388
• Parties: Eugene C. PERRET, as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Wayne Perret, a Deceased minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. Anna Belle WILSON, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. Anna Belle WILSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Steven Craig Fain, a Deceased minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. Eugene C. PERRET, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. to
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 388

281 So.2d 388

Eugene C. PERRET, as Administrator of the Estate of Randall Wayne Perret, a Deceased minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Anna Belle WILSON, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Anna Belle WILSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Steven Craig Fain, a Deceased minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Eugene C. PERRET, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Nos. R--217 to R--220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

E. Earle Zehmer and William C. Gentry, of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellants.

George D. Gabel, Jr., of Kurz, Toole, Taylor, Mosely & Gabel, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants in four consolidated appeals having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

RAWLS, C.J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

JOHNSON, Judge (dissenting):

With due respect, I must register my dissent from the majority opinion of this Court.

These consolidated cases were instituted by appellants against appellee to recover for the wrongful death of two thirteen year old boys who were passengers in an automobile which collided with the appellee's freight train. I do not deem it necessary, for the purposes of this dissenting opinion, to set forth all the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause. Suffice it to say that, on December 24, 1969, at approximately 7:30 in the evening, the car in which decedents were passengers was travelling east and was struck by a northbound freight train. The speed of the automobile was in dispute, but the train's speed was approximately 53 to 55 miles per hour.

The appellants' principal contention at trial was that the appellee was negligent in maintaining the vicinity of the railroad crossing. It was claimed, in part, that appellee was negligent in permitting trees and other growth to remain on its right-of-way in the vicinity of the crossing so as to obstruct a motorist's view of an approaching train. In support of this allegation and as proof that the railroad had previous notice of the dangerous...