TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tampa Electric Co. v. Bryant

Tampa Electric Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, vs. Myrtle Bryant, Defendant in Error

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Bryant, 133 So. 887 (Fla. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1931
Judges
Whitfield, Terrell, Davis, Buford, Ellis, Brown
Citations
133 So. 887101 Fla. 204

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment for $15,000.00 damages awarded to a widow for the wrongful death of her husband while employed by the electric company as a lineman, whose death is allegéd to have been caused by contact with a negligently unprotected ground wire while working on live electric wires on a pole supporting electric wires of defendant. There was no plea of contributory negligence, but under the hazardous occupations statute if there is contributory negligence the recoverable damages shall be diminished in proportion to the negligence attributable to the injured party. Sections 7047 (4960), 7060 (4973), C. G. L.; F. C. & P. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1 , 25 So. 328 ; 79 A. S. R. 149; 17 C.J. 1243; 8 R. C. L. 780.

*205 The evidence indicates that the decedent was negligent in permitting his exposed arm to touch a live wire on which he, an experienced lineman, was working. The evidence also indicates negligence of the defendant in leaving exposed the ground wire which the decedent’s foot touched when his arm came in contact with the exposed wire on which he was working.

It seems apparent that the damages sustained were not . properly diminished in proportion “to the amount of default attributable to” the decedent as required by the statute.

A ground of liability appearing and the damages awarded not being properly apportioned, it is ordered that if within thirty days the plaintiff below enters a remittitur of seven thousand dollars as of the date of the judgment, the judgment shall stand affirmed for eight thousand dollars, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. See St. Johns Electric Co. vs. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188 , 105 So. 818 ; S. U. Co. v. Davis, 90 Fla. 168 , 105 So. 315 .

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Watson137 So. 719 (Fla. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Watson137 So. 719 (Fla. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
St. Johns Elec. Co. v. Lawler, 105 So. 818 (Fla. 1925) 8
Southern Utils. Co. v. Davis, 105 So. 315 (Fla. 1925) 3
Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1 (1899) 88

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list