Ansin v. Thurston
| Decision Date | 26 March 1958 |
| Citation | 101 So.2d 808 |
| Parties | S. ANSIN, Petitioner, v. Ralph L. THURSTON, Respondent. S. ANSIN, Petitioner, v. Ralph L. THURSTON, as Administrator of the Estate of Ralph L. Thurston, Jr., deceased minor, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for petitioner.
Nichols, Gaither, Green, Frates & Beckham and Sam Daniels, Miami, for respondent.
The petitioner, defendant in the trial court, seeks review by certiorari of a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, by which certain judgments against him in tort actions for negligence were affirmed.
The only point presented in the appeal below was the alleged error of the trial court in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict on the issue of liability. The actions against him, both arising out of the same circumstances, were by the respondent individually and as administrator of the estate of his minor son, who died by drowning in a 'rockpit' on land owned by defendant. In each case the cause of action was dependent upon proof of facts sufficient to come within the doctrine of tort liability usually referred to as attractive nuisance.
It was the opinion of the district court that the facts alleged and proved, details of which appear fully in the published report of the case in that court, were sufficient to present a jury question under the rule enunciated in the case of Allen v. William P. McDonald Corporation, Fla., 42 So.2d 706, to the effect that the maintenance of an artificial body of water where there exists some unusual element of danger not present in ponds or natural bodies of water generally may constitute actionable negligence supporting recovery for injury or death by drowning of a minor child upon the theory noted above.
The petition herein is necessarily prosecuted under that portion of amended Article V, Section 4(b), (4(2), F.S.1957) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., authorizing review by certiorari in this Court of 'any decision of a district court of appeal * * * that is in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same point of law * * *', and the corresponding provision of Rule 2.1, subd. a(5)(b) of the Florida Appellate Rules.
Petitioner contends that the decision below is not in accord with the rule of the case relied upon by the district court, and that it conflicts with two subsequent decisions where this Court affirmed judgments for defendant in such actions, but did not purport to overrule the earlier case. Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 47 So.2d 527; Lomas v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 57 So.2d 881. In the brief much attention is devoted to the character of the banks surrounding the body of water involved, and argument is addressed primarily to the point that the present case is distinguishable upon the facts from Allen v. McDonald Corp., supra. The very fact that petitioner finds it necessary in a proceeding of this nature to review with such particularity the evidence in the various cases, and to refer to authorities elsewhere to bolster his position, would indicate that the argument is primarily upon the merits of the decision attacked as opposed to any contention that it brings into existence a conflict of authority in this jurisdiction. These considerations, among others, impel our conclusion that the writ should be denied for failure to show direct conflict between the decision in question and a previous ruling 'on the same point of law.' Rule 2.1, subd. a(5)(6) supra.
We have heretofore pointed out that under the constitutional plan the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...delineating the narrow confines of our jurisdiction to review District Court of Appeal decisions on the 'conflict theory.' Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So.2d 808; Lake v. Lake, Fla., 103 So.2d 639; Florida Power and Light Co. v. Bell, Fla., 113 So.2d 697; Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., ......
-
Schein v. Chasen
...of Florida law when not in conflict with other decisions of this Court. Fla.Const., art. V, §§ 4(b)(1) and 3(b)(3); Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958). There being no decisions of this Court on the elements of a shareholder's derivative suit, their identification in decisions of th......
-
Bunkley v. State, SC01-297.
...operational on July 1, 1957, the Florida Supreme Court emphasized the role of these tribunals as "final" courts.8 In Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808, 810 (Fla.1958), this Court It was never intended that the district courts of appeal should be intermediate courts. The revision and moderniz......
-
Schein v. Chasen
...of Florida law when not in conflict with other decisions of this Court. Fla.Const., art. V, §§ 4(b)(1) and 3(b)(3); Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958). There being no decisions of this Court on the elements of a shareholder's derivative suit, their identification in decisions of th......
-
Asking for written opinion from a court that has chosen not to write one.
...at 230 (Drew, J., concurring specially). (4) The intended "finality" of the district courts of appeal is discussed in Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. (5) The factual foundation for this belief was express in England and McMahon, Quantity Discounts in Appellate Justice, 60 JUDIC......
-
Jurisdiction creep and the Florida Supreme Court.
...REV. 325, 326 (1999). (10) See FLA. CONST. of 1885, art. V, [section] 5(3) (1956). (11) See id. [section] 4(2). (12) Ansin v. Thurston, 101 So. 2d 808, 810 (Fla. 1958) (citing Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Goldstein, 100 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1958); Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, 101 So. 2d 375, ......