Florida Railway Co. v. Sturkey

Citations

• 56 Fla. 196

Syllabus

<p>1. A party has no right to complain of a portion of the charge of the court upon a particular feature of the case when the charge taken as a whole is more liberal to him than the evidence warrants.</p> <p>2. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of another’s interests such care, precaution and vigilance as the circumstances justly demand, and while railroad trainmen are not usually bound to foresee or watch for the wrongful presence of any person upon the track, yet if experience has shown that at certain points persons are constantly thus entering upon the track, and it appears that the company has acquiesced in the use thus made of the track, such persons if injured, as the proximate result of the trainmen’s failure to use ordinary care to keep watch for them may recover damages, if the trainmen could have seen them without difficulty had they kept a reasonable watch or lookout, even though in fact they did not see them; especially is this doctrine applicable to a backing train.</p> <p>3. In this case we see no reason for disturbing the verdict as the jury evidently apportioned the damages in proportion to what they found to be the negligence of the respective parties as the statute authorizes to be done.</p>