Russell v. Martin
| Decision Date | 23 May 1956 |
| Citation | 88 So.2d 315 |
| Parties | Melbourne Lee RUSSELL, Appellant, v. John W. MARTIN, as Trustee of the property of the Florida East Coast Railway Company, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
George B. Mehlman and George H. Butler, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Anderson, Scott, McCarthy & Preston, William B. Killian, Miami, Russell L. Frink, Jacksonville, and Robert H. Anderson, Miami, for appellee.
Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Russell, instituted this suit against appellee, hereinafter referred to as the Railroad, to recover damages for negligently striking and killing plaintiff's minor son, Michael Lee Russell, while riding his bicycle along the tracks and over the crossing of the Railroad, within the corporate limits of the Town of Lantana, Florida. The acts of negligence alleged were: Defendant ran its train at a high and dangerous speed, in violation of the ordinance regulating speed of trains within the corporate limits of the Town of Lantana, without giving signals or warnings of the train's approach. The answer of defendant denied negligence on its part and as an affirmative defense interposed an agreement between Russell and the Railroad in which Russell was given a license to use the Pine Grove Trailer Park Crossing as a private crossing. Russell also agreed to indemnify and save harmless the Railroad from any and all claims arising out of the use of said crossing; that he (Russell) would use said crossing at his own risk and would not rely on the Railroad, its agents, employees, servants or invitees for signals or warnings of approaching trains. On the issues so made, summary judgment for the Railroad was entered and Russell appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not there was error in the order granting summary judgment.
It is admitted that Pine Grove Crossing was the scene of the accident in which Michael Russell was killed. Russell contends that the question urged requires an affirmative answer because the agreement between Russell and the Railroad was devoid of mutuality. For the purpose of this suit, it is not necessary to determine whether the agreement was in effect a license or an easement subject to revocation by the Railroad. An easement is more permanent in nature than a license; it is generally for a specified period, otherwise it is not revocable by the grantor. There is accordingly no basis for the contention that the agreement is void for lack of mutuality. Whichever it was, it had been in effect seven years and the Railroad had performed on its part. The consideration running to the Railroad was Russell's agreement not to hold it liable for any accident on the crossing. Under such circumstances the contract was executed and lack of mutuality was no defense; the agreement was fully executed and was binding on the parties. Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413, 117 A.L.R. 248; Le Noir v. McDaniel, 80 Fla. 500, 86 So. 435; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Secs. 83 and 79.
It is next contended that the crossing agreement is void because of inequality of bargaining power on the part of the parties thereto.
This contention is supported by Williston on Contracts, Sec. 1751C. When read in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Gila River Ranch, Inc.
...Co. v. Great No. Ry. Co., 294 F.2d 629 (9th Cir.1961); Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Rissler, 184 F.Supp. 98 (D.Wyo.1960); Russell v. Martin, Fla., 88 So.2d 315 (1956); See also Annots., 14 A.L.R.3d 446 and 175 A.L.R. 8. In the absence of a statute or agreement, a railroad is under no duty to c......
-
Brown v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
...the parties contractually permitted to use the tracks. Accord, Cacey v. Virginian Ry. Co., 85 F.2d 976 (4th Cir. 1936); Russell v. Martin, 88 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla.1956). Second, the phrase "loss . . . contributed to . . . by the negligence of Union Camp" in paragraph 12 makes clear that the ......
-
Dennis v. Kline
...void on the ground of public policy.” France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Russell v. Martin, 88 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla.1956) (stating that a contractual document will not be invalidated on public policy grounds “unless it is injurious to the publi......
-
Suntogs of Miami, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.
...it will carry you," Story v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., in Orlando, 115 Fla. 436, 156 So. 101, 103 (1934); see also Russell v. Martin, 88 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla.1956), we are nonetheless confident that with the plain legislative expression in Section 95.03, our mount is in this instance tame......