Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Griffis
| Decision Date | 09 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | HH-307 and HH-316,Nos. HH-306,s. HH-306 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 1063 |
| Parties | SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Auto-Train Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Jensen of Jacksonville, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Safeco Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellants, v. Marion L. GRIFFIS, Pilot Equipment Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, andHartford Fire Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles Cook Howell, III, Joseph P. Milton and James T. Terrell, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Charles T. Boyd, Jr., Jacksonville, Edna L. Caruso, Christian D. Searcy, West Palm Beach, and Henry M. Searcy, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Seaboard, Auto-Train and Jensen appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Griffis, Pilot and Hartford following a jury
trial of a railroad crossing case involving a collision between a train and a Gradall truck.
On the morning of the accident Griffis was operating the Gradall on the side of the road northwest of the railroad crossing. He worked the Gradall, a 29-foot-long piece of construction equipment, eastward along the shoulder of the road toward the railroad tracks. The Gradall was being driven by him from the operating cab and from that position was incapable of attaining a speed of over five miles per hour. From any other position on the Gradall, it was capable of attaining speed of up to 50 miles per hour. When he was about 26 feet from the tracks, Jensen's construction foreman motioned for him to get out of the area because the Gradall was too close to the tracks.
Griffis moved the boom, including the operating cab and himself, until the boom faced southeast. He then proceeded to a point where the front of the Gradall was approximately 15 feet from the nearest or western-most track and came to a complete stop. He swung the boom to his left to look north, then swung the boom to his right to look south. Leaving the boom in the southeast position, he started over the tracks. He estimated that the front of the Gradall was between the west set of tracks and the east tracks when he first saw the train approaching from the north. He thought he could make it over the west set of tracks before the train reached the intersection.
Although the speed limit for trains in the area was 60 miles per hour, the approaching Auto-Train was traveling only 50 miles per hour. The engineer and fireman observed the Gradall begin to move forward after the train came around the curve north of the intersection. They estimated the distance of the engine from the intersection to be 450 to 600 feet when the Gradall began crossing the tracks. The train was approximately 50 to 75 feet from the crossing when the emergency brakes were activated. The train hit the rear three feet of the Gradall causing personal injuries to Griffis and property damage to the Gradall and the locomotive.
Griffis brought suit against Auto-Train for negligent operation of the train; Seaboard for negligent maintenance of the right of way and warning device and failure to maintain adequate warning devices and exercise reasonable care under the circumstances; and Jensen for failure to take proper precautions for Griffis' safety while working near the crossing. Pilot, the owner of the Gradall, was brought into the suit and numerous crossclaims and counterclaims were filed by the parties.
After trial the jury returned its verdict finding Griffis, Auto-Train, Seaboard, and Jensen guilty of negligence which was a contributing cause of the accident and assigned the following percentages: Griffis 15 percent; Auto-Train 45 percent; Seaboard 20 per cent; and Jensen 20 percent. The jury found the total amount of damages sustained by Griffis to be $75,000, by Auto-Train, $14,000, and by Pilot, $60,000.
Numerous points on appeal have been raised by Seaboard, Auto-Train and Jensen, but we have concluded that only one point merits discussion.
Seaboard contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict after all the evidence had been presented. We agree. The evidence did not support the allegations of negligence against Seaboard.
Griffis alleged that Seaboard was negligent in that it:
"(a) Failed to exercise reasonable care required under the circumstances.
(b) Failed to maintain adequate warning devices and signals at the crossing in question.
(c) Failed to properly maintain the warning devices and signals which were in existence at the crossing in question.
(d) Failed to maintain the right of way adjacent to the tracks north of the crossing in question in a reasonably clean and unobstructed condition."
Pilot, in its crossclaim against Seaboard, made the same allegations of negligence as Griffis and in addition alleged:
"(e) Failure to provide and require speed restriction regulations and devices for trains operating through Green Cove Springs, Florida."
There was no evidence presented to support the allegation that Seaboard failed to maintain the right of way in a reasonably clean and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Donahoe
...have done under the circumstances." Witt v. Norfe, Inc., 725 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1984); Seaboard Coast Rairoad Co. v. Griffis, 381 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1979). 19. Although Phillips expressed the view that Maurice had undressed her in the motel room, she denied fearing t......
-
Howard v. Blalock Electric Serv. Inc.
...have done under the circumstances.” Witt v. Norfe, Inc., 725 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir.1984); Seaboard Coast Railroad Co. v. Griffis, 381 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). Howard must prove that Blalock Electric was negligent in failing to prevent the harassment that was being perpet......
-
Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Kirk Line
...Eller's negligence as a matter of Florida law. See Russ v. State, 140 Fla. 217, 191 So. 296 (1939); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Griffis, 381 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla.App.) ("Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of another's interest, such care and precaution as the circ......
-
Cassel v. Price
...117 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1960); Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1977); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Griffis, 381 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Unfortunately, these often-repeated maxims offer little guidance for decision in the difficult cases, a......