Stringfellow v. Atlantic Coast Line Co Atlantic Coast Line Co v. Stringfellow, s. 71

• Citation: 290 U.S. 322,78 L.Ed. 339,54 S.Ct. 175
• Decision Date: 04 December 1933
• Docket Number: 95,Nos. 71,s. 71
• Parties: STRINGFELLOW v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. STRINGFELLOW
• Court: United States Supreme Court

290 U.S. 322

54 S.Ct. 175

78 L.Ed. 339

STRINGFELLOW

v ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

v. STRINGFELLOW.

Nos. 71, 95.

Argued Nov. 14, 1933.

Decided Dec. 4, 1933.

Mr. Wm. C. mcLean, of Tampa, Fla., for Stringfellow.

Messrs. McKinney Barton and James R. Bussey, both of St. Petersburg, Fla., for Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Guy Stringfellow and two of his minor children who were riding with him in an automobile lost their lives as the result of a collision with a train of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad at a right angled level crossing in Dunedin, Fla. His widow instituted five actions in the District Court for Southern Florida, one as widow to recover for the death of her husband; two as widow for the loss of the services of the deceased children; and two as administratrix of the children. The cases were consolidated for trial, and verdicts were directed for the defendant in all of them. Separate judgments were entered. Upon appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in the action for the death of the husband, but reversed and remanded for new trials in the remaining cases.

There was conflicting testimony as to the speed of the train and the sounding of warnings of its approach, but verdicts were, nevertheless, directed because the trial judge thought the evidence permitted of no conclusion but that Stringfellow's negligence in driving up to and across the railroad tracks, with the approaching train in full view when he could have stopped and avoided the collision, was the sole proximate cause of the casualties. A majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals, upon a re-examination of the evidence, concurred with the trial court so far as the husband's case was concerned, but found that in the actions brought on account of the children's deaths there was room for a finding by a jury that the negligence of the husband and that of the railroad's employees concurred in bringing about the disaster. The dissenting judge thought the train crew's negligence concurred with Stringfellow's in causing the collision, and therefore all of the cases presented a question for the jury. The widow petitioned for the writ of certiorari in the action for the husband's death, and the company in the cases relating to the children; and the prayers of both were granted.

The applicable rules are not those of the common law (as to which compare Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 290 U.S. 227, 54 S.Ct. 172, 78 L.Ed. 285, decided this day), but are declared by the Compiled General Laws of Florida, which are:

'7051. A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons, live stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives, or cars, or other machinery of such company, or for damage done by any person in the employ and...