Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtDAVIS, J.
Citation106 Fla. 330,143 So. 316
Decision Date02 August 1932
PartiesSEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. AMERICAN DISTRICT ELECTRIC PROTECTIVE CO.

143 So. 316

106 Fla. 330

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO.
v.
AMERICAN DISTRICT ELECTRIC PROTECTIVE CO.

Florida Supreme Court

August 2, 1932


En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; DeWitt T. Gray, Judge.

Action by the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company against the American District Electric Protective Company. To review judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

COUNSEL [106 Fla. 331] Fleming & Fleming, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Julian Hartridge, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

DAVIS, J.

The Seaboard Air Line Railway Company entered into a written contract with the American District Electric Protective Company, by the terms of which the latter company, as 'contractor' agreed with the railroad company, as 'subscriber,' to operate and cause to be operated on the subscriber's premises a certain Manual Night Watch and Fire Alarm Signal System and maintain the same in good working order, with the understanding that the entire system and all devices should remain the sole property of the contractor.

In a suit between the 'Subscriber' and the 'Contractor,' the amended declaration alleged that the 'contractor,' disregarding its duties under the contract, carelessly and negligently allowed one of the wires comprising the signal system to sag, of which fact it knew, or ought in the exercise of ordinary care to have known, where by a proximate result of which, one of the employees of the railroad company by the name of W. E. Haskins was knocked from the top of a freight car and injured, by reason whereof the railroad company became liable to him in damages, and paid him the sum of $4,112.50 in satisfaction thereof. The claim asserted thereupon was that because of the circumstances alleged, the 'contractor' had likewise become liable to the 'subscriber' for the damages which the 'subscriber' had been compelled to pay its employee by reason of the 'contractor's' negligence.

The court sustained a demurrer to the declaration, and from the final judgment entered thereon, this writ of error is taken.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the suit was erroneous for the reasons hereinafter stated.

[106 Fla. 332] Generally, one of two joint tort-feasors cannot have contribution from the other. But there are exceptions to this rule, one of which is in that class of cases where...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 practice notes
  • NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. AYERS ET AL.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 2003
    ...Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 153-155, 98 N. E. 2d 783, 785-786 (1951); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 333, 143 So. 316, 317 (1932); Lewter, Right of Railroad, Charged with Liability for Injury to or Death of Employee Under Federal Employers' Liabil......
  • Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, No. 01-963.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 2003
    ...Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 153-155, 98 N. E. 2d 783, 785-786 (1951); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 333, 143 So. 316, 317 (1932); Lewter, Right of Railroad, Charged with Liability for Injury to or Death of Employee Under Federal Employers' Liabil......
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Morse, No. 3-62-Civ. 287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 13 Junio 1963
    ...or who had a contractual duty of care which had been breached. See also Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316 (1932); American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Kittleson, 179 F.2d 946 (8th Cir. 1950); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Virginia ......
  • Prince v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Cal. 2009), No. S149344.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 19 Marzo 2009
    ...Casualty Co. (1934) 95 Colo. 99, 33 P.2d 974, 977-978; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American District Electric Protective Co. (1932) 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316; Busch & Latta Paint Co. v. Woermann Const. Co. (1925) 310 Mo. 419, 276 S.W. 614, 619 ["In all cases where one party create......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
51 cases
  • NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. AYERS ET AL.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 2003
    ...Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 153-155, 98 N. E. 2d 783, 785-786 (1951); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 333, 143 So. 316, 317 (1932); Lewter, Right of Railroad, Charged with Liability for Injury to or Death of Employee Under Federal Employers' Liabil......
  • Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, No. 01-963.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 2003
    ...Co., 343 Ill. App. 148, 153-155, 98 N. E. 2d 783, 785-786 (1951); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 333, 143 So. 316, 317 (1932); Lewter, Right of Railroad, Charged with Liability for Injury to or Death of Employee Under Federal Employers' Liabil......
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Morse, No. 3-62-Civ. 287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 13 Junio 1963
    ...or who had a contractual duty of care which had been breached. See also Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316 (1932); American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Kittleson, 179 F.2d 946 (8th Cir. 1950); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Virginia Engi......
  • Prince v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Cal. 2009), No. S149344.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 19 Marzo 2009
    ...Casualty Co. (1934) 95 Colo. 99, 33 P.2d 974, 977-978; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American District Electric Protective Co. (1932) 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316; Busch & Latta Paint Co. v. Woermann Const. Co. (1925) 310 Mo. 419, 276 S.W. 614, 619 ["In all cases where one party creates the con......
  • 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