Union Bus Co. v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 15 December 1939 |
| Citation | 192 So. 811,141 Fla. 99 |
| Parties | UNION BUS CO. v. MATTHEWS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1940.
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Ira A. Hutchison, Judge.
Suit by Melissa Louise Matthews against the Union Bus Company, for the wrongful death of plaintiff's husband as result of collision between defendant's bus and the automobile in which plaintiff's husband was riding. To review the judgment, the defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Carter & Pierce, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
James H. Finch and Amos Lewis, both of Marianna, for defendant in error.
Melissa Louise Matthews brought suit against the Union Bus Company for the wrongful death of her husband, charging that it was due to the negligent operation of a passenger bus by defendant's servant. It was alleged in the declaration that the bus struck the car in which deceased was riding forcing it into a road guard and catapulting him against the guard and pavement, causing injuries from which death resulted.
The pleas were five in number besides the one of general issue. One was unique in construction. It charged that one Gause, the driver of the car, was guilty of contributory negligence because he and deceased were engaged in a joint enterprise for 'mutual pleasure' consisting of 'jooking', the former furnishing the car, the latter the gasoline. The remaining four pleas set up negligence of the driver of the passenger car, Gause, and contributory negligence of the deceased because of his drunkenness, his riding with Gause, who was intoxicated, and being a passenger in a car from which the doors had been removed.
The plaintiff recovered and defendant appealed, assigning as error the insufficiency of the evidence and the refusal of the court to give a charge that defendant should be absolved from blame if the injury was the result of Gause's negligence. We dispose of the latter question with the simple statement that other charges given by the court were sufficient to guide the jury on the matter of the negligence of deceased's companion and no error resulted from failure to give the requested one.
The sufficiency of the evidence requires thorough consideration. One of the first witnesses in behalf of the plaintiff was the driver of the bus, and, of course, plaintiff is bound by his testimony, although he was at the time of the incident an employee of the defendant. From him the court and jury learned that the passenger car, in which the deceased was riding, and the bus were proceeding in an easterly direction along a highway in Jackson County. The bus drew up to the passenger car, which was traveling in the center of the road and warning was given by the bus driver but the operator of the passenger car did not heed it, whereupon the bus driver diminished the speed of his vehicle to a rate allowing him to throw out some newspapers at a town known as Grand Ridge. Again he overtook the passenger car and sounded his signal. This time the passenger car drew near the right side of the road and the bus passed. After passing, the bus driver looked in his mirror to determine if he had cleared the car and learned that he had and that it was 'zig-zagging' in the road behind him. No jolt was felt at the time of passing and the bus driver first learned of the accident at the next town, several miles distant. He then examined the bus and found a small place in front of the right rear wheel where the surface was scratched and a 'rubber mark' back of the same wheel.
Witnesses who saw Gause, the driver of the passenger car, shortly after the accident, testified that he was sober. Gause swore that the death of his companion occurred about sunrise when the car in which they were riding was crowded from the road, pulled along for some distance by the bus, and forced against the guard, the impact throwing the defendant out and bending the right front fender against the tire. He said that he stopped the car afterward and went back to the body. He narrated the experiences of the deceased and himself for several hours previous to the collision. From ten o'clock of the evening until sunrise Gause had made the rounds of certain 'jooks' located around the county site and after two-thirty in the morning Matthews accompanied him. Some of the places visited were the 'Shamrock', the 'Echo', 'The Castle', 'Otto's' and 'Park Inn'. There is considerable testimony that both of them, and particularly Matthews, indulged in intoxicating liquors on their various stops.
The only eye witness of the tragedy who testified in behalf of plaintiff, except the driver of the bus, was Gause. Pitted against him were various passengers residing in different places in Alabama and Florida whose stories of the unfortunate event coincided in the main.
It was established beyond question that the passenger car was of the style called 'coach', with very large openings on each side where the doors had been removed about two years before. It was shown, too, that after the deceased was thrown from the vehicle when it struck the guard rail...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baston v. Shelton
...to her own injury, then she cannot recover even though defendant may have likewise been guilty of negligence. Union Bus Co. v. Matthews, 141 Fla. 99, 192 So. 811. The only we can draw from the whole evidence is that the plaintiff negligently walked into the approaching truck. Her own neglig......
-
Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Co.
... ... contention. Counsel cite and rely upon G. Ferlita & ... [10 So.2d 490] ... Sons v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Union Bus Co. v ... Matthews, 141 Fla. 99, 192 So. 811; Lindsay v ... Thomas, 128 Fla. 293, 174 So. 418. Many cases from other ... jurisdictions, ... ...
-
Main v. Benjamin Foster Co.
... ... lead us to the conclusions that the provisions of the statute ... were not intended to apply to suits on surety bonds. See ... Union Indemnity Co. v. Vetter, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 606 ... The statute provides that upon the rendition of a judgment or ... decree by any court of this ... ...
-
Ocean Ridge Development Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 70-464
...and minor repairs. Since Mr. Clark was the defendant's own witness, the defendant should be bound by his testimony. Union Bus Co. v. Matthews, 1939, 141 Fla. 99, 192 So. 811. The second reason why the failure to give the instruction is not reversible error is that the error, if any, was inv......