Allen v. William P. McDonald Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1949 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. WILLIAM P. McDONALD CORPORATION. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Whitaker Brothers, Tampa, for appellant.
Carver, Langston & Carver, Lakeland, for appellee.
The amended declaration, among other things, alleges that sometime prior to the 7th day of October 1947, defendant excavated the earth so as to construct an artificial lake or pond on its lands just outside the corporate limits of the City of Auburndale, that said pond was of varying depth with sloping banks of white sand, that it was within a few feet of the public highway in a settled community where there are many children of tender years, that said pond and its white and banks was alluring to said children who congregated around it and played on its white sand banks and in its waters, that defendant negligently left the said pond open, unfenced, unguarded and unprotected, without signs or warnings of any character, that the plaintiff and his family lived in their home about 300 feet from said pond, that on the 8th day of October 1947, the infant child of the plaintiff, Kenneth Edward Allen, two and one half years old, without the knowledge of his parents was attracted to the white sand banks and water in said pond and lost his life by drowning, due solely to the negligence of the defendant in constructing said pond and leaving it unguarded. A demurrer to the amended declaration was sustained and final judgment was entered for the defendant. This appeal is from the final judgment.
The only point for determination is whether or not an artificial lake or pond may be, under the facts stated, amenable to the attractive nuisance doctrine.
The rule supported by the decided weight of authority is that the owner of artificial lakes, fish ponds, mill ponds, gin ponds and other pools, streams and bodies of water are not guilty of actionable negligence on account of drownings therein unless they are constructed so as to constitute a trap or raft or unless there is some unusual element of danger lurking about them not existent in ponds generally. Ramsay v. Tuthill Building Material Co., 295 Ill. 395, 129 N.E. 127, 36 A.L.R. 23; United Zinc and Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268, 42 S.Ct. 299, 66 L.Ed. 615, 36 A.L.R. 28; 56 American Jurisprudence 850. The last cited authority was relied on by the trial court to support his order overruling the demurrer. It illustrates both the rule and the exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode
...of owners thereof, had its inception (and has its continued application) in attractive nuisance cases. See Allen v. William P. McDonald Corp., 42 So.2d 706 (Fla.1949) (the question in Allen was whether the artificial lake might be amenable to the attractive nuisance doctrine so as to establ......
-
Saga Bay Property Owners Ass'n v. Askew
...not generally existing in similar bodies of water or the water contains a dangerous condition constituting a trap. Allen v. William P. McDonald Corp., 42 So.2d 706 (Fla.1949); Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., 47 So.2d 527 (Fla.1950); Adler v. Copeland, 105 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); s......
-
McGill v. City of Laurel
...nuisance doctrine presented in the case at bar. Another Florida case cited by the appellants is the case of Allen v. Wm. P. McDonald Corp., 42 So.2d 706 (Fla.1949). This case is likewise distinguishable in the first instance from the case at bar because that court, under circumstantial evid......
-
Howard v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
...Lomas v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 57 So.2d 881; Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 47 So. 2d 527; Allen v. William P. McDonald Corp., Fla., 42 So.2d 706. The plaintiff contends that the unusual element of danger lurking about the railroad's well in this case is the straight d......