Bray v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

Supreme Court of Florida

Bray v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

15 So. 2d 417, 153 Fla. 619, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 718

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 So. 2d 417 (Bray v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company) 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

Bray v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 15 So. 2d 417, 153 Fla. 619, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 718 (Fla. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a final judgment for the defendant below entered upon demurrer by the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. It is contended here that the case at bar is not ruled by Kimball v. A.C.L. R.R. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533, and similar cases, because: (1) the car was driven by a person not familiar with the highway where it intersected the railroad track at Apopka; and (2) the blending of the colors of the highway and the cars of the defendant then obstructing the crossing prevented the plaintiff below from seeing the freight train in time to avoid the collision.

We have examined the authorities cited in the brief to sustain this contention, but we are forced to the conclusion that the negligence of the plaintiff, as a matter of law, in the case at bar precludes his recovery. The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a final judgment for the defendant below entered upon demurrer by the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. It is contended here that the case at bar is not ruled by Kimball v. A.C.L. R.R. Co., 132 Fla. 235, 181 So. 533, and similar cases, because: (1) the car was driven by a person not familiar with the highway where it intersected the railroad track at Apopka; and (2) the blending of the colors of the highway and the cars of the defendant then obstructing the crossing prevented the plaintiff below from seeing the freight train in time to avoid the collision.

We have examined the authorities cited in the brief to sustain this contention, but we are forced to the conclusion that the negligence of the plaintiff, as a matter of law, in the case at bar precludes his recovery. The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 So. 2d 417, 153 Fla. 619, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-company-fla-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack