Russell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Decision Date | 20 September 1937 |
Parties | RUSSELL v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1937.
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; De Witt T. Gray, Judge.
Action bye Willie Russell against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Evan T. Evans, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
W. E. Kay, J. L. Doggett, and J. L. Doggett, Jr. all of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
On April 1, 1936, plaintiff below, who is plaintiff in error here, filed his declaration in the circuit court of Duval county, Fla., against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation, who is defendant in error here, in which it was alleged that he received permanent physical injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant on July 31, 1934, while in its employment. It is alleged that the defendant through its foreman assigned plaintiff the duty of moving scrap iron from the yards of the defendant by means of a car on rails and these articles placed in a bin. The plaintiff was injured when moving a 'draw head' of approximately 200 pounds weight from the yard to the waste iron bin. He was employed by the defendant at the time as a common laborer.
The record shows that no attacks were made by the defendant on the legal sufficiency of the declaration, but a plea of the general issue or one of not guilty was filed to this declaration on July 18, 1934. A jury was sworn to try the issues and, after all evidence iin behalf of the plaintiff had been adduced and an announcement by plaintiff's counsel was made 'that he at that time had no other evidence to offer,' counsel for defendant moved the court on various grounds to direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. Out of approximately proximately 30 reasons for a directed verdict, it seems the following are sufficient to dispose of this suit:
The Court below sustained the motion for a directed verdict, overruled a motion for a new trial, and caused to be entered a final judgment for the defendant, and a bill of exceptions was signed by the lower court and the cause is here on writ of error. The assignments of error made here, broadly speaking, seek a review of the order of the lower court in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
Counsel for plaintiff in error suggests the question for decision is: Does the plea of not guilty in a tort action admit the relation of the parties as alleged in the inducement of the declaration? That, if this question presents the issue to be settled, then the judgment appealed from should by this court be reversed. The following authorities are cited in his brief to sustain his position: Section 4332, 4333, C.G.L., 2666, R.G.S.; Crandall in Florida Common Law Practice p. 179; Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 102 Fla. 731, 136 So. 557; McLeod Const. Co. v. Cooper, 101 Fla. 441, 134 So. 224; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, 43 So. 318; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coachman, 59 Fla. 130, 52 So. 377, 20 Ann.Cas. 1047; City of Key West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 So. 808; Smith v. Coleman, 100 Fla. 1707, 132 So. 198.
It is unfortunate that counsel for plaintiff in error failed and otherwise omitted to define, designate, or point out the exact words of the declaration which he considered or believed to be the inducement. It may be that pleadings vary from time to time as to the inducement part thereof. We take the definition of 'inducement' from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, being:
'And inducement is, in general, more a matter of convenience than of necessity, since the same matter may be stated in the body of the declaration; but by its use confusion of statement is avoided; 1 Chitty, Pl. 259.
Also 49 Corpus Juris p. 139, par. 143:
If the rule stated in the authorities, supra, applies, it is readily observed that more of the declaration is included under the 'inducement clause' than contemplated by counsel for plaintiff in error. Counsel for defendant in error assert in their brief the following portion of the declaration should be considered in this cause as the inducement, viz.:
'That on or about the 31st day of July, 1934, defendant was engaged in the occupation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter v. Florida Power & Light Co.
... ... Gleason, 97 Fla. 869, 122 So ... 270; Wager v. East Coast Hospital Association, 105 ... Fla. 547, 141 So. 743; Gravette v. Turner, ... Bradley, supra; King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber ... Co., supra; Russell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., ... 129 Fla. 535, 176 So. 778; Duval ... ...
-
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Clark
...Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Bradley, 121 Fla. 591, 164 So. 360; Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841; Russell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 129 Fla. 535, 176 So. 778; Hastings v. Taylor, 130 Fla. 249, 177 So. 621; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726; Fain v. Cartwr......
-
GENERAL ACC. FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP. v. Schero
...Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Bradley, 121 Fla. 591, 164 So. 360; Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841; Russell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 129 Fla. 535, 176 So. 778; Hastings v. Taylor, 130 Fla. 249, 177 So. 621; Duval Laundry Co. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726; Fain v. Cartwri......
-
Hughs v. Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co.
... ... 360; ... Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841; ... Russell v. Atlantic Coast [155 Fla. 303] Line R ... Co., 129 Fla. 535, 176 So ... ...