Case Name: Leslie L. MYERS, Individually and as father, next friend and guardian of Michael Lynn Myers, a minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and C. B. Russell, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1967-09-19
Citations: 202 So. 2d 624
Docket Number: No. 1079
Parties: Leslie L. MYERS, Individually and as father, next friend and guardian of Michael Lynn Myers, a minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and C. B. Russell, Appellees.
Judges: ANDREWS, J., and SPECTOR, SAM, and NANCE, L. CLAYTON, Associate Judges, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Leslie L. MYERS, Individually and as father, next friend and guardian of Michael Lynn Myers, a minor, Appellant, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and C. B. Russell, Appellees.
No. 1079.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.
Sept. 19, 1967.
Alan R. Schwartz, of Horton & Schwartz and Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence, Miami, for appellant.
Manley P. Caldwell and Arthur E. Barrow, of Caldwell, Pacetti & Barrow, Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an adverse jury verdict in an action arising out of a collision between a train and a motorcycle at a railroad crossing. The primary question for consideration is whether, in the absence of a showing that a railroad crossing is extra hazardous, more than the statutorily required warning devices must be provided.
This question was answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Wallace, 1911, 61 Fla. 93, 54 So. 893, and the basis for the opinion in Wallace was more recently followed in McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., Fla.App.1966, 198 So.2d 876.
In view of the holding in these cases, it is our view that the judgment appealed should be affirmed.
ANDREWS, J., and SPECTOR, SAM, and NANCE, L. CLAYTON, Associate Judges, concur.