Woodward v. Atlantic Coast Line RR

• Decision Date: 15 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 6357.,6357.
• Citation: 57 F.2d 1019
• Parties: WOODWARD v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

57 F.2d 1019 (1932)

WOODWARD v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R.

No. 6357.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 15, 1932.

E. R. Dickenson and Wm. M. Gober, both of Tampa, Fla., for appellant.

T. Paine Kelly, of Tampa, Fla., for appellee.

Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

Mrs. Woodward sued Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for the negligent homicide of her husband upon a street crossing in Tampa, Fla. A verdict was directed against her, and the sole question is whether there was evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The sufficiency of evidence in this connection does not refer to the credibility of the witnesses, but to the legal and logical effect of the facts testified to if believed by the jury. A trial judge may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, set aside a verdict because he is convinced that the jury have wrongly found the issues of fact, the result of which will be another trial before another jury; but he may not prevent the case going to verdict and decide it himself because he does not credit substantial evidence for one party, and would on that account be disposed to set aside a verdict in his favor. Howard v. L. & A. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 49 F.(2d) 571, 574. "Issues that depend on the credibility of witnesses, and the effect or weight of evidence, are to be decided by the jury. * * * Where uncertainty as to the existence of negligence arises from a conflict in the testimony or because, the facts being undisputed, fairminded men will honestly draw different conclusions from them, the question is not one of law but of fact to be settled by the jury. Richmond & Danville Ry. Co. v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43, 45, 13 S. Ct. 748, 37 L. Ed. 642." With these principles in mind, we think the judge infringed upon the right of jury trial in directing a verdict in this case.

The deceased was shown to be a young man with a wife and baby, $40 cash in his pocket, and a job awaiting him. He had arrived in Tampa the day of his death, going with his family to the home of his wife's stepfather. The stepfather had a night job, and the deceased accompanied him to work, leaving him early in the night to go back home. His route to the street car would have been by Ashley street. That street was crossed, by the main line and other tracks of the railroad company. The main line was guarded at the crossing by safety gates which were to be lowered when trains were to pass. Just beyond the gates two spur tracks crossed the street, passing eastwardly between two long roofed platforms for unloading automobiles from these tracks. The gates did not include these tracks, and were not lowered when a train used them. The street was paved across all the tracks, but the sidewalk paving stopped with the buildings, and did not continue past the ends of the sheds and across the tracks. At about 12:45 o'clock at night the deceased was found by a train crew 180 feet west of Ashley street on the southernmost spur track, left arm and leg crushed, body bruised, dirty and bloody, clothing torn off, unconscious and dying. The blood signs showed he had been dragged down the track from a point about in line with the east...