Case Name: Walker D. Hines, U. S. Director General of Railroads, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Errorr v. Monroe Venable, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1921-05-19
Citations: 81 Fla. 754
Docket Number: 
Parties: Walker D. Hines, U. S. Director General of Railroads, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error v. Monroe Venable, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 754–756

Head Matter:
Walker D. Hines, U. S. Director General of Railroads, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error v. Monroe Venable, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed May 19, 1921.
1. in an action to ‘recover damages for loss of property alleged t.o have been- destroyed hy fire Avhich escaped from a locomotive engine, the burden of showing affirmatively in the first instance • that the fire was caused, hy the defendant in the operation of its. train as alleged is, upon the plaintiff;, and that fact cannot be presumed.
2. Where the testimony fails to directly connect othe defendant with the setting out of the fire by which it is alleged that plaintiff’s property was destroyed, . a judgment ■ awarding damages to the plaintiff for the property burned will he reversed.
A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Alachua County; L. P. Hardee, Referee.
Reversed.
Hampton & Hampton, for Plaintiff in Error;
W. S. Broome, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant in error recovered a judgment against the railroad company for the loss of property destroyed by fire, in an action wherein it was alleged that as a result of the defendant's carelessness and negligence in failing to provide its engine with proper and necessary appliances, instruments and spark arresters, that sparks and brands of fire escaped from the engine and were carried, thrown upon and ignited and burned plaintiff's property as specifically alleged. On writ of error it appears that the testimony adduced in the transcript of the record does not show by direct testimony or by duly connected probative circumstances that the property was destroyed by fire that was the result of the defendant's negligence as alleged. The burden of shownig affirmatively in the first instance that the fire was caused by the defendant in the operation of its train as alleged was upon the plaintiff; and' that fact cannot be presumed. Gracy v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 350, text 364, 42 South. Rep. 903.
The testimony fails t'o directly connect the defendant with the setting out of the fire; and conjecture cannot supply the neeessarjr evidence. The judgment must be reversed on the authority of Florida East Coast R. Co. v. McElroy, 72 Fla. 90, 72 South. Rep. 459; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Royal Palm Soap Co., 80 Fla. 800, 86 South. Rep. 835; Payne v. McKinnon, 81 Fla. —, 88 South. Rep. 495, decided at this term.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.