Skip to main content
· 1/15/1910

Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Citations

  • 59 Fla. 305

Syllabus

<p>1. If no evidence is adduced at the trial of a civil action upon which a verdict for the plaintiff may be lawfully predicated, the court may direct a verdict for the defendant. Or if a fair consideration of the whole evidence, or the application of controlling provisions or principles of law to the evidence adduced at the trial of a civil action, precludes a verdict for the plaintiff, the court may direct a verdict for the defendant.</p> <p>2. The court should not direct a verdict for the defendant unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for plaintiff. If the evidence is conflicting, or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, the case should be submitted to the jury for their finding of fact on the evidence, and not taken from them and passed upon by the court as a question of law.</p> <p>3. The court should not direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained. The power of the court to direct a verdict on the evidence should be cautiously exercised.</p> <p>4. Where injury by the running of a railroad company’s locomotive is established, the statute places the burden upon the railroad company to “make it appear that their agents * exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence” to prevent the injury; and the statute also provides that “if the complainant and the agents of the company are both at fault, the former may recover, but the damage shall be diminished or increased by the jury in proportion to the amount of default attributed to him.”</p> <p>5. Where there is testimony from which the jury could lawfully infer at least some negligence on the part of the fireman of a railroad locomotive in notifying the engineer that the person injured was approaching the track with an apparent purpose to cross ahead of the train, a peremptory

Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.