Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 351.03
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5294, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26425
shareholder in a transaction nontaxable under § 351. 3 Both the basis and the holding period
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 152 Fla. 813, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 1037
Reargued: Jul 9, 1943
...s train. The collision occurred in the City of Miami where 7th Avenue traverses the double tracks of defendant at right angles. The crossing is at street level and, at the time this accident occurred, was protected by the statutory cross arm signal (Section 351.03 , Florida Statutes, 1941) which carries the legend "Railroad Crossing....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...80,000. As grounds for reversal, the Railroad urges the following six points: 1) That evidence of the accident site speed limit adopted by the Railroad should not have been admitted over objection; 2) that the court's instruction that a violation of Section
351.03 constituted negligence was error; 3) that the court's instruction that violation of an industry standard was evidence of negligence was error; 4) that exclusion of the last sentence of Section
316.171, Florida Statutes, in the court's...
...Atlantic Coast Line Railroad,
103 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); and Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. *1010 v. Buchman,
358 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In charging the jury in this case, the trial court stated that if the jury found that the Railroad had violated Section
351.03, Florida Statutes (requirement to place crossbucks) such violation was negligence per se....
...3d DCA 1978) (finding error in refusing to give instruction that violation of applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulation was negligence per se). Death may not be left, without any required warning, to stalk unfettered a railroad-highway intersection. We hold that Section 351.03, Florida Statutes, was enacted to protect the motoring public from collisions with trains by requiring the placement of crossbucks to warn of the existence of, and to locate the railroad's tracks and that violation of such statute is negligence per se....
...fused to give the per se instruction. We need not go as far as Florida Freight. The requirement to place crossbucks is established by statute and by industry standard. We have already held that the court may instruct that a violation of the statute (Section 351.03) is negligence per se....
...Accordingly, we hold that it was not error to instruct that a violation of an industry safety standard is non-conclusive evidence of negligence. [2] *1012 Also, while instructing the jury in this case, the trial court read the following portion of Section 351.03, Florida Statutes: "Every railroad company shall exercise reasonable care for the safety of motorists whenever its track crosses a highway and shall put up large signboards at or near said crossing with the following inscription in large letters on both sides of the boards: LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS! ... All motorists approaching a railroad crossing shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety and that of their passengers and for the safety of railroad train crews operating trains across such crossings." A proviso of Section 351.03, Florida Statutes, not read to the jury stated: "This requirement for posting signs shall not apply to railroad crossings having signs as required by s....
...nt of transportation, the railroad companies shall not be required to erect or maintain additional signs or reflectors at such crossings." (Emphasis added) The Railroad, argues, unpersuasively, that the trial court erred in giving the instruction on Section
351.03, Florida Statutes, without including the proviso referring to Section
316.171, Florida Statutes, urging that, because the D.O.T....
...artment of Transportation could have placed its own railroad warning signs at the actual site of the crossing, as well as the yellow, circular advanced warning signs. Had the D.O.T. placed such crossing site warning signs, the crossbucks required by Section
351.03 would be rendered unnecessarily duplicative and the railroad would have been relieved of its duty to place the crossbucks by the operation of the above, emphasized sentence of Section
316.171. If the crossing in this case had been declared dangerous pursuant to Section
316.171 and the D.O.T. had not placed warning signs at the crossing site the Railroad would still have been under a statutory duty to place crossbucks pursuant to Section
351.03....
...Thus, the D.O.T., while it did place advance warning signs some 222 feet in advance of the crossing, was not required to, and did not, place railroad warning signs at the actual crossing. It remained the Railroad's responsibility to mark the crossing site with crossbucks as required by Section 351.03 and it failed to do so....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Griffis testified that he saw the railroad crossbuck sign and the vehicular stop sign. However, Griffis argues that these existing warning signals were inadequate and mechanical warning signals should have been installed. Seaboard contends that the crossbuck complied with its obligations under the law, Section 351.03, Florida Statutes (1977), and nothing more was required....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1689, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 368, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 989, 2010 WL 2518200
...(2004) ("Any liability of the state and its agencies and its subdivisions which arises out of this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of s.
768.28."); §
45.061(5), Fla. Stat. (2004) ("This section shall not be construed to waive the limits of sovereign immunity set forth in s.
768.28."); §
351.03(4)(c), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5350, 1991 WL 62456
...The plaintiff filed a response in opposition on December 18, 1990. Defendants Martinez and Butterworth filed a supplemental memorandum on January 22, 1991, to which the plaintiff filed a response on February 4, 1991. The Court heard oral argument on January 23, 1991. At issue in this case is Fla.Stat. § 351.03(4)(a), which was enacted in 1984....
...MOTIONS TO DISMISS In their motion, the Governor and the Attorney General contend that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction since the plaintiff has failed to allege any controversy between the plaintiff and these defendants. [2] The Governor and the Attorney General allege that § 351.03(4)(a) does not mention, directly or indirectly, either defendant, nor does it provide any duties or obligations for either defendant....
...They further contend that there is no law which requires a governor to be a party when a plaintiff attacks a state statute and the *784 powers or duties of the governor are not at issue. Additionally, the Governor and the Attorney General state that § 351.03(4)(a) does not provide any penalties. Rather, each local government which adopts an ordinance specifies a penalty for its breach. Therefore, they contend that they have no interest in the enforcement of any ordinances enacted pursuant to § 351.03(4)(a). The Florida Department of Transportation [hereinafter "DOT"] contends that the plaintiff has not alleged that the DOT has taken or failed to take any action whatsoever with respect to § 351.03(4)(a). The DOT contends that it has no involvement with the enforcement of the municipality or county ordinances which have been enacted pursuant to § 351.03(4)(a)....
...Furthermore, the DOT alleges that enforcing the municipal or county ordinances is not one of its duties or general powers. Therefore, the DOT alleges that it should not be a party to the suit. In response, the plaintiff contends that the defendants' position demonstrates one of the fatal flaws of § 351.03(4)(a). The plaintiff alleges that federal law allows only a state to enact legislation relating to railroad safety. Thus, if § 351.03(4)(a) can be enforced, it can only be enforced by the state....
...Florida Dep't of Transp.,
921 F.2d 1190, 1203 (11th Cir.1991). Consequently, a federal court may only hear those cases in which a concrete dispute exists. Fire Fighters Local 2238 v. City of Hallandale,
922 F.2d 756, 759 (11th Cir. 1991). The Court finds that §
351.03(4)(a) neither authorizes nor obligates the Governor, the Attorney General, or the DOT to perform any duties. Section
351.03(4)(a) empowers counties and municipalities to enact ordinances regarding the sounding of railroad train horns. The plaintiff's controversy is properly with those municipalities and counties which have enacted such ordinances. Those municipalities and counties are the parties who have an interest in protecting their ordinances enacted pursuant to §
351.03(4)(a)....
...the apportionment of a statewide legislative body, the Governor is not considered a necessary party and need only be provided notice by registered mail). Lastly, the plaintiff's contention that it seeks to enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing § 351.03(4)(a) does not alter this Court's conclusion. Rather, an analysis of this contention reveals support for the Court's conclusion. As stated above, § 351.03(4)(a) does not require or authorize the Attorney General to enforce the whistle-blowing ordinances enacted by the counties and municipalities....
...Thus, the Court would be enjoining the Attorney General from doing something he has no interest or authority to do. III. CONCLUSION The Court finds that there is no case or controversy present between the plaintiff and the Governor, the Attorney General, or the DOT. The plaintiff's attack on § 351.03(4)(a) should be directed toward a municipality or county which has enacted a whistle-blowing ordinance pursuant to § 351.03(4)(a)....
...That the Motions of Defendants Martinez and Butterworth to Dismiss, filed on December 7, 1990, are granted. 2. That the Florida Department of Transportation's Motion to Dismiss, filed on December 10, 1990, is granted. 3. That the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment dismissing this action. DONE AND ORDERED. NOTES [1] Section 351.03(4)(a), states, in relevant part: No railroad train of a railroad company operating wholly within this state may emit an audible warning signal between the hours of 10 p.m....
...ade crossings so signalized within that municipality or county and where the municipality, county, or state has erected signs at the crossings involved announcing that railroad train horns and whistles may not be sounded during such hours. Fla.Stat. § 351.03(4)(a) (1989)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2828, 2005 WL 756837
...rida Statutes provide a framework of obligations and immunity in regard to the installation of warning or protective devices at railroad crossings. These provisions make the Liboy Estate's claims against CSX untenable. At the outset, Florida Statute Section 351.03, in relevant part, sets a base line: (1) Every railroad company shall exercise reasonable care for the safety of motorists whenever its track crosses a highway and shall be responsible for erecting and maintaining crossbuck grade-cross...
...(2) Advance railroad warning signs and pavement markings shall be installed and maintained at public railroad-highway grade crossings in accordance with the uniform system of traffic control devices by the governmental entity having jurisdiction over or maintenance responsibility for the highway or street .... [3] FLA. STAT. § 351.03(1)-(2)....
...[4] In *1337 regard to crossbucks, the MUTCD provides: "As a minimum, one Crossbuck sign shall be used on each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control devices." MUTCD § 8B.03, available at http:// mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. Accordingly, Section 351.03 allocates to railroad companies the responsibility to install and maintain the minimum, necessary traffic control device at public or private railroad-highway grade crossings. FLA. STAT. § 351.03(1)....
...blic road. Any change in the design of a traffic control device in the uniform system of traffic control devices applies only at new installations and at locations where replacements of existing devices are being made. Fla. Stat. §
316.171. As with Section
351.03, Section
316.171's reference to "the uniform system of traffic control devices adopted pursuant to s....
...ssing improvement. FLA. STAT. §
335.141(2)(a). In the instant case, the Glen Rose Crossing is a location at which a CSX railroad crosses at grade a public road, Glen Rose Avenue. ( See Doc. 72, Attach. 1, at 5-9). [7] It is clear that, according to Section
351.03, CSX had a duty to maintain crossbucks at the Glen Rose Crossing....
...37 (M.D.Fla.1992), have permitted such claims to proceed against railroad companies, that point is to no avail. A significant change has occurred. Florida law now looks to the MUTCD as a guide to implementing traffic-control devices at railroad-highway grade crossings, FLA. STAT. §§
351.03,
316.171; and, according to the MUTCD, it is up to the appropriate regulatory agency to determine the need and selection of such devices, MUTCD § 8A.01....
...By comparison, Florida's current statutory framework, along with its reliance on the MUTCD, is more consistent with Wallace, and reveals that Louallen, Webb, Buchman, and (accordingly) Smith no longer represent the law of Florida. See FLA. STAT. §§
351.03,
316.171,
335.141....
...Accordingly, the clerk's testimony does not give rise to a material issue of fact as to whether Amtrak, Taylor, or Smith negligently failed to stop the train. 2. Claim for Failure to Sound Horn Appropriately The Liboy Estate's claim that the train's horn was not sounded appropriately is on better footing. Florida Statute 351.03 provides in relevant part that "any railroad train approaching with 1,500 feet of a public railroad-highway grade crossing shall emit a signal audible for such distance". FLA. STAT. 351.03(3)....
...[3] The remainder of subsection (2) reads: "All persons approaching a railroad-highway grade crossing shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety and for the safety of railroad train crews as well as for the safety of train or vehicle passengers." FLA. STAT. § 351.03(2)....
...ch event, so long as said automatic signals are maintained in force and effect, it shall be unnecessary for the railroad companies to comply, and such railroad companies are herein and hereby relieved from the duty of complying with, ss.
316.171 and
351.03 relating to signboards and crossing signs....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1971 Fla. LEXIS 3265
...ineer) applied the brake. The accident occurred at the railroad crossing over Himes Avenue in the City of Tampa. No flashing light signals, only “cross-buck” signs were provided at the crossing in this urban area by the railroad pursuant to F.S. Section 351.03, F....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4465
the crossbuck signs required by Florida Statutes §
351.03, F.S.A. was visible 400 feet from the crossing
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2554, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16798
...Appellant essentially contends in that point that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and in allowing appellee’s counsel to argue to the jury, that appellant could be found negligent for failing to provide additional crossing protection and warnings other than that mandated by section 351.03, Florida Statutes (1979), without such additional protection devices having been required by the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 338.21, Florida Statutes (1979). The evidence presented at trial established that the railroad crossing was protected by an advance warning sign and white roadway markings showing “R X R,” in addition to the crossbucks and signs required by section 351.03....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1985).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Secretary Pappas: This is in response to your request for an Attorney General's Opinion on substantially the following question: DOES SECTION 351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
...E ADDRESSES ALL PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS? Your letter advises that the Department of Transportation is responsible for erecting signs on state highways and is unsure how to proceed when a municipality or county enacts an ordinance as described in s 351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
...(1984 Supp.), which is applicable to all public at-grade railroad crossings, regardless of whether railroad trains owned by an intrastate or interstate company traverse the crossings. Additional research on the legislative history of CS/SB 427 (enacted as Ch. 84-73, Laws of Florida, and codified as s 351.03 , F.S....
...[1984 Supp.] and communications with your department have revealed that this legislation apparently was determined to be applicable to only two railroads in this state. Testimony taken during the committee hearings on CS/SB 427 indicated that the bill, enacted as s 351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
...This opinion deals exclusively with the authority of the Department of Transportation to erect signs at particular public at-grade railroad crossings. No comment is expressed herein regarding any municipal or county ordinance enacted pursuant to s 351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
...evices, and subsection (3) thereof which states that a municipality or county may not erect or maintain any official traffic control device so as to regulate the traffic on any state road without first obtaining written approval from the department. Section 351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
...at the crossings involved announcing that railroad train horns and whistles may not be sounded during such hours. Signs so erected shall be in conformance with the uniform system of traffic control devices as specified in s.
316.0745 . (e.s.) Cf., s
351.03 (2), F.S....
...Jones,
408 So.2d 769 (2 D.C.A.Fla., 1982) (in construing statute, court should consider its history, evil to be corrected, intent of Legislature, subject regulated and object to be obtained). Therefore, it may be presumed that the Legislature was aware of these circumstances and as s
351.03 (3)(a), F.S. (1984 Supp.), permits regulation only of those trains of railroad companies operating wholly within the state, I am of the opinion that the Legislature intended the scope of s
351.03 (3)(a), to extend only to those public at-grade crossings over which railroad trains of railroad companies operating wholly within this state pass....
...sounded during particular hours at those public at-grade crossings having train-activated automatic traffic control devices on all state roads (as defined in s
316.003 [51], F.S. [1984 Supp.], which are subject to an ordinance enacted pursuant to s
351.03 (3)(a), F.S....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3923
the crossbuck signs required by Florida Statutes §
351.03, F.S.A. was visible 400 feet from the crossing
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1985).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
office can make the following observations. Section
351.03(3)(a), F.S. (1984 Supp.), provides as follows:
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
divulged by the record unless Florida Statutes, §
351.03, F.S.A., which provides that a train shall not
