Loftin v. Dagley, (1943)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 17
Judges: SEBRING, J.:
Attorneys: Russell L. Frink, John H. Summerlin and J. Henry Taylor, for appellants.
P.W. Harvey and Curtis Basch, for appellee.
Filed: Apr. 27, 1943
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendants' railroad tracks extend north and south through the City of Port Orange. Within the city limits, they pass over Dunlawton Street, which runs east and west. At the point of intersection, the Railway Company maintains a public crossing. Although Dunlawton Street is 50 feet wide, and its entire width is used for pedestrian travel, a strip of the street only 20 feet wide is hard-surfaced for vehicular traffic. Where the defendants' tracks pass over this strip, the Railway Company maintain
Summary: Defendants' railroad tracks extend north and south through the City of Port Orange. Within the city limits, they pass over Dunlawton Street, which runs east and west. At the point of intersection, the Railway Company maintains a public crossing. Although Dunlawton Street is 50 feet wide, and its entire width is used for pedestrian travel, a strip of the street only 20 feet wide is hard-surfaced for vehicular traffic. Where the defendants' tracks pass over this strip, the Railway Company maintains..
More
I am inclined to the view stated by Mr. Justice ADAMS. If, however, the court was justified in charging on the presumption statute, I think the court should have instructed the
jury that this presumption did not apply to the count based on the alleged negligence in the failure to maintain the crossing in safe condition. Furthermore, if the charge on the presumption statute was justified, the Court should have given the requested charge on contributory negligence as defined in the same Statute. Sections 7051, 7052'and 7053, C.G.L. are all parts of a single statute.
Source: CourtListener
