The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-07-18
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT


whose acts or negligence the testimony
fails entirely to show any privity OF
responsibility upon the part of the plain
tiff.
II. A person having property adjacent
to railroad is not bound to keep his
property in such condition as to guard
against the negligence of the railroad
company, but every person has the right
to enjoy his property in the ordinary
manner; and while one is charged with
the duty of saving his property when he
can do SO, he is under no obligation To
stand guard over it, continually watch
ing it, to protect it from the negligence
of a railroad company.
Is. The fact that person property
is exposed to the reach of sparks OF To-
connective engine is no defense to an &C
ton for an injury occasioned by the rail .
road CON pany's negligence in setting out
fire.
10. A person has the right to construct
buildings on any part of his property,
and to enjoy the same without rendering
himself liable to the negligence of a rail-
road company.
80. Assuming, but not deciding, that
the negligence of lessee or hirer of
property in not saving it, or any part OF
it, may, under some circumstances, pre-
clude the lessor or owner from receiving
from the person whose negligence was
the proximate cause of fire by which it
was destroyed, the rejection of charges
to such effect is immaterial to the defen-
dant when the testimony shows that the
lessee not only endeavored to save, but
actually saved, some of the property, and
does not show that he was negligent in
not saving other property than that
which he did save, but there is not suffi-
cient testimony in the record to have en-
abled the jury to find that any particular
property destroyed could have been
saved by him in the exercise of due dill.
gence.
81. Where the fire resulting in the in
Jury complained of is shown to have been
set by a PAL ticular locomotive, evidence
of former fires set out by the same en-
CINE is admissible as tending to prove its
defective construction or condition, or
improper management, but fires set out by
other locomotives are inadmiSsible be-
cause Irrelevant.
90. Error cannot be assigned on the
mere admission of testimony claimed to
be irrelevant, which was not objected to
ON that ground in the trial court.
%. Where testimony Of a witness is
objected to as irrelevant on his direct ex-
animation, but does then not appear to
be so, and afterwards on the cross-exami-
nation it is shown to be so, and there is
NO motion made to strike out the direct
testimony, error cannot be assigned on
the mere admission of the direct evil
ience.
"A. 1t is within the discretion of a trial
court to permit plaintiff who may be-
fore resting have introduced enough tes-
timony to make out D7inaG fdcie case, to
introduce after the defendant has rested
additional proof in chief, as distinguished
from proof in rebuttal, and the exercise
of this discretion is not assignable al
error except in case of manifest abuse
TAYLOR, j.:
Is. In a suit for damages for the de
Ntruction of property by fire alleged L
Lave been negligently allowed to escap,
from defendants railroad engine, tn.
question, whether the fire that escaped
from such engine was the direct or prOxi
mate cause If the destruction of plain
lifts property, is one Of fact for the jury
10 determine from the evidence.
Is. In such suit if the evidence show
that sparks, negligently permitted to es
cape from the defendants engine, caused
the original fire, and that its natural ane
continuous spread could not have beer
arrested by the plaintiff in the exercise .
proper care until it reached and DESTROYED
his property, and that its destruction O
his property was not caused by new o.
intervening force, then, upon the ques
ton of direct or proximate cause, it dee
not matter whether the buildings de
Stroyed Of the plaintiffs were the first O.
the tenth to be consumed by such fire
81. Proximate cause is that which nat
uEally leads to Or pr duces given result
such result as might be expected di
re6tly and natu' ally to flow ON sucl
cause; such a result as naturally suggest
itself to the mind OF any reasonable an,
prudent man as likely to flow out Of til
performance or performance o; an
act.
%. To entitle a party 10 recover 70
property destroyed through the neg q
gence Of another, the negligence com
planned of must be shown to be the prox
innate cause of the injury sustained
%. InStIu, tions Of law Ivy The court t
The jury must be predicated upon som
evidence that has been introduced at tn
trial, and it is not error to refuse to giv
instructions that are mere abstract propC
siti ms of law, that are not made applics
bic to the case by some color Of evidence
30. 1t is not error refuse to give in
structiOns upon propositions Of law tia
are substantially embraced in and covere
by other instructions already giver
though couched in different language.
81. Everyone is liable for all of thos
injuri us consequences that might hay
been foreseen and expected as the lesu
Of his conduct, but not for those that
could not have foreseen, and was therefor
under no moral obligation to take mi
his consideration, This rule from r
Parsons on Contracts 9th edition), paa
$50, cited with approval frn, "
80. The measure of damage in cas-,
Vhere the property Of one has been d
strOyed, INDEPENDENTLY, but by the nes
igence Of another, where there is no eli
ment of wilfulness or righteousness in i
destruction, is just compensation
money for the property destroyed sue
an amount as will fully tore the los'
to the same property status that he occ,