City of Daytona Beach v. Humphreys
| Decision Date | 29 June 1951 |
| Citation | 53 So.2d 871 |
| Parties | CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH v. HUMPHREYS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Walter A. Shelley, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Horn & Ossinsky, Daytona Beach, for appellees.
The appellees, Lillie Mae Humphreys and husband, W. C. Humphreys, obtained in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, judgments against the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. The verdict and judgment for the wife was the sum of $1,000, while the amount entered below for the husband was the sum of $1,500. It appears by the record that Lillie Mae Humphreys, on October 22, 1947, stepped in a hole about six inches in diameter situated on the edge of the sidewalk and located on the west side of Beach Street between Magnolia Avenue and Volusia Avenue. The theory of the appellees' suit is that the city breached its duty to keep in safe condition the portion of the street, supra, for the use of pedestrians then lawfully upon the street. The injuries sustained by Lillie Mae Humphreys are alleged in Count One of the declaration and attached is a bill of particulars.
The second count of the declaration is by the husband who sought to recover losses for consortium and for money expended by him in behalf of the wife for hospitalization, medicines, nursing, doctors bills, etc., as a result of injuries sustained by the fall when she stepped in the hole in the sidewalk. The issues made by the declaration and several pleas of the defendant were submitted to a jury under appropriate instruction on the part of the trial court. It is contended by the appellant that the judgments so entered are contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence. We have examined the evidence and it is our view that the jury simply settled the disputes and conflicts as testified to by the witnesses for the appellees on the one side and the appellant on the other. This is reflected by the record when a witness for the plaintiffs testified that she advised the city as to the hole in the sidewalk some time prior to the time that Mrs. Humphreys fell.
It is next contended that the judgments should be reversed because they hold the City of Daytona Beach to a degree of care higher than required by law, as in reality the City became in insurer of the safety of the plaintiff. We cannot agree to this contention, as there is in the record testimony to establish the fact of notice on the part of the city of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullis v. City of Miami
...5 So.2d 593; City of Tampa v. Easton, 145 Fla. 188, 198 So. 753; Barth v. City of Miami, 146 Fla. 542, 1 So.2d 574; City of Daytona Beach v. Humphreys, Fla., 53 So.2d 871. The question of the contributory negligence of Mrs. Mullis was likewise one for the jury. The fact that it affirmativel......
-
City of Miami v. Wolff, 58-561
...Town of Palm Beach v. Hovey, 115 Fla. 644, 155 So. 808; City of Clearwater v. Gautier, 119 Fla. 476, 161 So. 433; City of Daytona Beach v. Humphreys, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 871; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174. Although the section of sidewalk could be considered substandard, th......