Ruff v. Georgia, Southern & Florida Railway Co.

Citations

• 67 Fla. 224
• 64 So. 782

Syllabus

<p>1. In an actiou against a railroad company for damages impersonal injuries sustained in the running of a train, under an allegation that the “passenger train was by and through the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in the running of said train, derailed and wrecked, whereby plaintiff was” injured, any competent testimony is admissible that is relevant to the alleged “negligence and carelessness of the defendant in the running of said train,” whereby the train was “derailed and wrecked,” including the condition and speed of the train, and the condition of the roadbed and track at the time and place of the alleged injury.</p> <p>2. Where liability is shown the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the weight of legal and competent evidence, the nature and extent of the injuries sustained, of the character substantially as alleged.</p> <p>3. In an action for negligent injury, under an allegation that the plaintiff was injured in her person and “was thereby rendered incapable of performing her duties of school teaching, which she has pursued with great success * and for which she had been specially trained and educated” and that “by reason of such injuries * she did necessarily lay out divers sums of money in and about endeavoring to have herself cured of her said injuries,” the plaintiff could by competent evidence show personal injuries, loss of earning capacity as a school teacher, and “sums of money” paid “in endeavoring to have herself cured of her said injuries.”</p> <p>4. A motion for new trial upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to prove the facts in issue, is at common law to be determined by the trial court, and its ruling thereon is not, reviewable by the appellate court at least where there is any legal evidence to* sustain all the essential elements of the finding; and an order granting a new trial, not being a final judgment, is not at common law subject to direct review by writ of error.</p> <p>5. Any prin