Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Arnett
| Decision Date | 05 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. U--351,U--351 |
| Citation | 303 So.2d 653 |
| Parties | SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Paul J. ARNETT, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary A. Bubb and Clark W. Toole, Jr., of Toole, Taylor, Moseley, Gabel & Milton, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Arthur T. Boone and Gordon H. Lee, Jacksonville, for respondent.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, seeking review of an order of the Circuit Court striking the fourth defense asserted by the petitioner herein in its answer in the trial court.
There is some question (which we do not find it necessary for us to answer as determinative of this case) as to whether or not the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari may be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions (see Hotel Roosevelt Company, Inc. v. Hill, 196 So.2d 233 (Fla.App.1st, 1967).
The fourth defense contained in the petitioner's amended answer alleged substantially that the plaintiff had litigated the question of liability of the defendant railroad in a previous suit by the same plaintiff against the same railroad arising out of the same collision in which both of the plaintiff's two children were killed, in which the jury had rendered a verdict of 'not guilty' as to the railroad.
There is no question about the facts that the death of the two children was the result of the auto-train collision in question. However, as held by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Culloden v. Music, 226 So.2d 240 (1969), the causes of action involved two different persons. No matter how similar the points of law and questions may be, the points and questions herein revolve around the death of Paul Joe Arnett, the minor child of the plaintiff, and not of Carol Arnett who was the other minor child lost in said collision.
Therefore, we agree with the holding of our sister Court, in Culloden v. Music, supra, that said defense of estoppel by judgment is not applicable to the facts in this case and that the trial court was not in error in striking the same.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.
I am in complete agreement with the above opinion however, I think it pertinent to note that our holding may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Cox
...154 (Fla.App.2d 1975). There is conflict with the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Arnett reported at 303 So.2d 653 (Fla.App.1st 1974). We have jurisdiction to harmonize these decisions. The legal issue to be decided concerns the applicabi......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Arnett
...cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported at 303 So.2d 653 (Fla.App.1st 1974). It concerns the application of estoppel by judgment. There is conflict with the Second District Court's decision in Seaboard Coast L......
-
Wilson v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...supra, which was rendered after the trial of the administratrix's action. We agree and reverse. (See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Arnett, Fla.App.1st 1974, 303 So.2d 653, and Fitzsimmons v. City of Pensacola, Fla.App.1st 1974, 297 So.2d cause in favor of the railroad upon the pri......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Cox, 74--1050
...pertained to Roger's death. The First District Court of Appeal followed Culloden in its recent case of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Arnett, Fla.App.1st, 1974, 303 So.2d 653. This would seem to set the matter at rest were it not for the case of Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Fla.......