Bryan v. City of West Palm Beach

• Decision Date: 11 January 1918
• Parties: BRYAN v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

77 So. 627

75 Fla. 19

BRYAN v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH.

Florida Supreme Court

January 11, 1918

Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; H. Pierre Branning Judge.

Suit by Gadsden D. Bryan against the City of West Palm Beach. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Whitfield J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where the Legislature seeks to give a municipal corporation immunity from liability for personal injuries caused by the omission to perform or the improper performance of one of its municipal or private duties as distinguished from its governmental, such immunity will not be extended to include acts of commission, so that persons injured thereby cannot recover for injuries sustained when rightfully engaged in using the streets.

The immunity from liability for personal injuries due to defective condition of the streets cannot be extended to include obstructions placed in the streets by the city whereby persons rightfully using them are injuried.

Whether the Legislature has power to exempt cities from liability for personal injuries due to defective condition of its streets or for the misfeasance or nonfeasance of its officers or employés, is not decided in this case.

COUNSEL

Gordon R. Broome, of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error.

H. L Bussey, of West Palm Beach, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BROWNE C.J.

Plaintiff in error brought suit against the city of West Palm Beach for personal injuries caused by the city placing and maintaining a dangerous obstruction in one of its streets, by laying and stretching wires along and upon the street for the purpose of marking and designating a parking place for automobiles, over which plaintiff while walking on the street in the nighttime tripped and fell. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained on the ground that the city of West Palm Beach is not liable, because section 94 of its charter (chapter 6411, Acts of 1911) provides:

'The city of West Palm Beach shall not be liable for personal injuries due to defective condition of its streets or for the misfeasance or nonfeasance of its officers or employés.'

The plaintiff refused to amend his declaration, or plead further, and final judgment was rendered for the defendant; whereupon the plaintiff took writ of error to this court and seeks reversal thereon.

The distinction between the governmental and municipal functions of cities is thus stated in Cyc.:

'The functions of municipal corporations, although all of a public nature, are properly divisible into two great classes, according to the double nature and purpose of the institution, namely: (1) Governmental, which are those conferred or imposed upon it as a local agency of limited and prescribed jurisdiction, to be employed in administering the affairs of the state, and promoting the public welfare generally; and (2) municipal, being those granted for the special benefit and advantage of the urban community embraced within the corporate boundaries.' 28 Cyc. 267.

These are sometimes called public and private functions, and under the latter is included the proper care of the streets. 28 Cyc. 268, 269.

These distinctions have been recognized and approved by this court in the case of Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372, where the subject is discussed by Mr. Justice Ellis, and we will content ourselves with this citation therefrom:

'Many of the powers exercised by a municipality, such as...