Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams

Citations

• 50 Fla. 429

Syllabus

<p>1. The contributory negligence of parents i® permitting a child, a boy four years and one month old, to go without a care taker upon the streets of a city upon which electric cars are operated, can not be imputed to the child in an action by him against the corporation operating the electric cars, for damages resulting to him from the negligent operation of an electric car.</p> <p>2. An instruction calculated to mislead the jury is properly refused.</p> <p>3. Where the motorman of an electric car, being operated upon the streets of a city, should and must have seen a child of tender years, unattended, in dangerous proximity to the track upon which the car was being operated, it was his duty to use means “strictly commensurate with the demands and exigencies of the occasion” to prevent injuring such child, the burden of proof being upon the Electric Car Company to show that such means were used, and under such circumstances if such proof is not satisfactorily made, the company is negligent and liable for damages.</p> <p>4. If there are several important issues in a case, it is not proper to single out one of them in an instruction, in such a way as might impress the jury that such issue was the controlling one, and thus mislead the jury; and such an instruction is properly refused.</p> <p>5. Where the bill of exceptions does not show any exception to the ruling of the trial judge denying a motion for a new-trial, this court can not consider the merits of such motion.</p>