Fla. Motor Lines Inc. v. Hill, (1931)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 17
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Shutts Bowen and Knight, Thompson Turner, for Plaintiff in Error;
Arthur Codington, John A. Fort and Fraser Poole, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Oct. 06, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This case grew out of the same collision as that which precipitated the case of Florida Motor Lines, Inc. vs. Mollie Jane Ward, decided this date. The pleadings in both cases were the same except that in the latter case they show that plaintiff's intestate, Robert I Ward, was the owner and driver of the Dodge car which collided with the motor bus of defendant, while in the instant case plaintiff's intestate, James R. Hill, was the guest and companion of Robert I. Ward and was sitting on the fron
Summary: This case grew out of the same collision as that which precipitated the case of Florida Motor Lines, Inc. vs. Mollie Jane Ward, decided this date. The pleadings in both cases were the same except that in the latter case they show that plaintiff's intestate, Robert I Ward, was the owner and driver of the Dodge car which collided with the motor bus of defendant, while in the instant case plaintiff's intestate, James R. Hill, was the guest and companion of Robert I. Ward and was sitting on the front..
More
I hardly think the evidence could be held to show any negligence on the part of Mr. Hill. But for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Terrell's opinion in the case of Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, growing out of the same collision, and the writer's concurring opinion, I am inclined to the view that the weight and legal effect of the evidence shows that the sole proximate cause of the death of defendant in error's intestate was the negligence of the driver of the car in which Mr. Hill was riding, and that the judgment should therefore be reversed.
Source: CourtListener
