Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Gordon
| Citation | 328 So.2d 206 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. Y--128,Y--128 |
| Parties | SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a corporation, Appellants, v. Allen Mack GORDON and Delcher Brothers Storage, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Gary A. Bubb, Toole, Taylor, Moseley & Milton, Jacksonville, for appellants.
E. Robert Williams, Boyd, Jenerette, Leemis & Staas, and Claude K. Slater, Slater & Randle, Jacksonville, for appellees.
BARKDULL, THOMAS E., Associate Judge.
From the record on appeal, it appears that while transporting household goods of the Nordeens (parties not involved in this appeal) a truck, owned by Delcher Brothers Storage, Inc. and being driven by Allen Mack Gordon, became stuck across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. This crossing was shortly beyond a curve in the Seaboard tracks. When the train rounded the curve, upon observing the stalled truck, it was unable to stop because of its speed before colliding with the truck. Subsequently, an action was commenced by the Nordeens against Seaboard and Gordon to recover for the damage to their personal property. Seaboard filed a crossclaim against Gordon and a third-party complaint againt Gordon's employer, seeking indemnification based upon a theory of passive negligence on the part of the Railroad and active negligence on the part of Gordon, which would make his employer vicariously liable. The trial judge dismissed with prejudice the crossclaim and the third-party complaint. This appeal ensured.
Subsequent to the order of the trial court, here under review, the Nordeens settled with Gordon and Delcher. The appellees contend that this in and of itself, because of the provisions of the new Uniform Contribution Among Tort Feasors Act, enacted by the 1975 Legislature, and particularly § 768.31(5)(b), 1 releases them from any action seeking contribution. 2
We hold, first, that the trial judge was correct in dismissing the cross-claim and third-party complaint becuase it is apparent on the face thereof that the Railroad was at least an active tort feasor. Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Soper, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 605. We further affirm the action because of the provisions of § 768.31(5)(b), of the Uniform Contribution Among Tort Feasors Act, it being conceded that the original plaintiffs had settled their original claim against Gordon.
Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. Hertz Corp.
...for which recovery was had, neither is entitled to indemnity from the other. 41 Am.Jur.2d Indemnity § 21. See Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Gordon, 328 So.2d 206 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Armor Elev. Co., Inc. v. Elev. Sales & Serv., Inc., 309 So.2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Dura Corp. v. Wallace, 29......
-
Puder v. Raymond Intern. Builders, Inc.
...Transit Authority v. Simmons, 375 So.2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 639 (Fla.1980); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Gordon, 328 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); (2) the legal relationship between Puder and Raymond would not support an indemnity claim and, in addition, ......
-
Schreier v. Parker, 81-1594
...1979), cert. denied 386 So.2d 639 (Fla.1980); Martinez v. Gonzalez, 368 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Gordon, 328 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We turn now to one other point which merits discussion. During the close of the case, counsel for defendant......
-
Rebhan Leasing Corp. v. Trias, 81-2732
...admit that their claim for contribution was properly dismissed. § 768.31(5)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Gordon, 328 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). ...