Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hillhouse

Supreme Court of Florida

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hillhouse

64 Fla. 173

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 Fla. 173 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hillhouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hillhouse, 64 Fla. 173 (Fla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, C. J.

Hillhouse brought an action to recover damages for the loss of a horse alleged to have been struck by a train of the railroad company. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error.

In an action under the statute to recover for “damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives or cars” of a railroad company, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of was caused by the running of the locomotives or cars of the defendant railroad company. Until the plaintiff sufficiently alleges and proves substantially as alleged, the fact of an actionable injury caused by the running of the engine or cars of a railroad company, the statute raises no presumption of negligence against the company. Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 South. Rep. 618.

In this case there is no testimony that the plaintiff’s horse was struck by the defendant’s train as alleged, and the physical facts in evidence negative any supposition that the horse was injured by the train. It appears that the horse harnessed to a buggy was after dark hitched to a lamp post within a few feet of the railroad track and near the corner of the depot building, and that an hour or more later the horse was found still hitched to the post, but it was lying between the shafts of the buggy injured in the rear of its back. The buggy was not injured, and the position of the horse and the buggy indicates that the train could not have struck the horse as alleged. The injury was apparently a peculiar one. There is no evidence that the train ran against the horse and the condition and position of the horse and the buggy repel an inference that the horse was struck by the train. [175]*175Under these circumstances the liability of the defendant company does not appear.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Tayior, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whitfield, C. J.

Hillhouse brought an action to recover damages for the loss of a horse alleged to have been struck by a train of the railroad company. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error.

In an action under the statute to recover for “damage done to persons, stock or other property, by the running of the locomotives or cars” of a railroad company, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of was caused by the running of the locomotives or cars of the defendant railroad company. Until the plaintiff sufficiently alleges and proves substantially as alleged, the fact of an actionable injury caused by the running of the engine or cars of a railroad company, the statute raises no presumption of negligence against the company. Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 South. Rep. 618.

In this case there is no testimony that the plaintiff’s horse was struck by the defendant’s train as alleged, and the physical facts in evidence negative any supposition that the horse was injured by the train. It appears that the horse harnessed to a buggy was after dark hitched to a lamp post within a few feet of the railroad track and near the corner of the depot building, and that an hour or more later the horse was found still hitched to the post, but it was lying between the shafts of the buggy injured in the rear of its back. The buggy was not injured, and the position of the horse and the buggy indicates that the train could not have struck the horse as alleged. The injury was apparently a peculiar one. There is no evidence that the train ran against the horse and the condition and position of the horse and the buggy repel an inference that the horse was struck by the train. [175]*175Under these circumstances the liability of the defendant company does not appear.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Tayior, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Fla. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-railroad-v-hillhouse-fla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack