Burnsed v. Seaboard C. R. Co. - 290 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1974)

Rule:

Since railroad companies are created by the state for quasi public purposes, and are thereby affected by a public interest, the Legislature may to the extent of such interest regulate and control them except in so far as it is restricted by the contract obligation imposed by the charter or statute under which the companies are incorporated, and subject of course to the constitutional restrictions against the impairment of vested rights, denial of the equal protection of the laws, or due process of law. The police power of a state embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity or the public welfare as well as those designed to promote the public safety or the public health. The police power includes legislative authority to make regulations reasonably necessary or conducive to the public welfare.

Facts:

Appellant driver, who had been drinking, struck a train positioned over a roadway and was injured. No lighted fuses had been placed at the crossing as required by Fla. Stat. ch. 357.08. Appellant filed suit against appellee railroad company and the trial court granted in part appellee's motion for summary judgment, holding that Fla. Stat. ch. 357.08 was unconstitutional because it constituted an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the state's police power. Appellant sought review and asserted that the statute was within the state's police power.

Issue:

Was the statute unconstitutional in that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The supreme court held that the statute was within the proper and reasonable exercise of the state's police power and that the law was not an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of that power. The court ruled that there was a relatively small burden considering the potential threat to human life posed by trains blocking intersections. The court indicated that Fla. Stat. ch. 357.08 was passed to protect and preserve human life and was passed for the purpose to protect the public. The court held that the statute was constitutional and reversed the ruling of the trial court. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.