Tampa Electric Co. v. Vavoudes

• Citation: 111 Fla. 524,149 So. 584
• Parties: TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. v. VAVOUDES.
• Decision Date: 20 July 1933
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

149 So. 584

111 Fla. 524

TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. v. VAVOUDES.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 20, 1933

Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1933.

Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L. L. Parks, Judge.

Action by Harry Vavoudes, by his legal guardian, Angiro H. Vavoudes against the Tampa Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL Knight, Thompson & Turner, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.

Drumright & Carswell, of Tampa, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for personal injuries. It is shown that defendant in error alighted from a street car at the intersection of Franklin and Estelle streets in Tampa, Fla. There was an automatic switch located at the center of the intersection of the two streets, and in order that a car might proceed down Franklin street, it was necessary for the operator to turn off the current about fifty feet before reaching the switch. This caused the switch to remain open, but if he wanted to proceed along Estelle street, he turned on the current at the same distance, and this automatically turned the switch diverting the car to Estelle street.

Immediately before the accident, the car stopped to let off defendant in error and other passengers, the operator turned off the current, and the car proceeded along Franklin street. As the front trucks passed over the switch, a bolt holding the tongue of it broke; this threw the switch and caused the rear trucks of the car to proceed along Estelle street. As the rear end of the car thus departed from its correct course, it struck the defendant in error, bruising and lacerating his legs and arms, bruising his back, crushing his skull, and otherwise injuring his head, rendering him unconscious, and causing him permanent injuries.

A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for $15,000 in favor of the plaintiff, a new trial was denied, and the cause was brought here for review on writ of error.

Plaintiff in error contends that the judgment below should be reversed because the evidence conclusively shows that at the time of the accident, the car was being operated with due care and prudence and no negligence on its part is shown to have been committed.

We have examined the record, and the numerical strength of the evidence preponderates to this effect, though there is contrary evidence ample to support the verdict. It is our view that under the facts...