City of Pensacola v. Jones
| Decision Date | 14 December 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 874,58 Fla. 208 |
| Parties | CITY OF PENSACOLA v. JONES. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. E. Wolfe Judge.
Action by James M. Jones against the City of Pensacola. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Under the statutes of this state (Gen. St. 1906, s 1017) municipal corporations have the power to regulate and control the grading, construction, and repairs of all streets, pavements and sidewalks in such municipalities, respectively, and as a result of this power they are required to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing defects in streets and sidewalks after the unsafe condition thereof is known, or ought to have been known, to them, or to their officers having authority to act for them; and the municipality is liable in damages for negligent nonperformance of this duty.
Where a statute authorizes the city to require abutting owners 'to construct uniform and substantial sidewalks around their several lots, and to keep the same in repair,' it does not relieve the city of its duty 'to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing defects in * * * sidewalks,' or its liability for negligence in the discharge of this duty.
In an action to recover damages from a municipality for injuries received because of defects in a sidewalk, where it is alleged that the city 'had possession and control of' the 'street and the sidewalks thereon,' and 'knowingly, wrongfully, and negligently suffered the sidewalk' 'to become and remain in a defective and unsafe condition for many weeks before' the injury, and the particular defects are stated, and it is alleged 'that the defendant knew or should have known that said defective sidewalk existed for many weeks before and at the date of the injury,' such allegations necessarily import that the 'sidewalk was not reasonably safe.'
Where the allegations of a declaration show that a city was negligent in not keeping its streets in repair, it is not necessary to allege additional negligence in not keeping the streets lighted so as to warn pedestrians of danger caused by the negligence of the city.
COUNSEL John B. Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. C Monroe, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Escambia county against the city of Pensacola for injuries received because of a defective sidewalk in the city. On writ of error it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. City of Tampa
... ... employment, the city is liable. See 43 C.J. 974, 977; Key ... West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 So. 808; City of ... Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, [124 Fla. 460] 50 So ... 874; City of Jacksonville v. Drew, 19 Fla. 106, 45 ... Am.Rep. 5; Keggin v. Hillsborough County, ... ...
-
City of Tallahassee v. Hawes
... ... Fortune, 3 Fla. 19, 52 Am. Dec. 358; 13 R. C. L. p. 311; ... City of Jacksonville v. Drew, 19 Fla. 106, 45 Am ... Rep. 5; City of Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, 50 ... So. 874; Key West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 So ... In ... Janes v. City of Tampa, 52 Fla. 292, 42 ... ...
-
City of Key West v. Baldwin
...of the city of Key West not only bring the city within the general rule as to keeping its sidewalks in good condition as announced in the Pensacola case, but impose upon it that duty in specific The allegations of the declaration that the city of Key West about December, 1912, raised the gr......
-
Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Madden
...208 Mass. 307, 94 N.E. 279; Harvey v. Chester, 211 Pa. 563, 61 A. 118; Cammett v. Haverhill, 197 Mass. 76, 83 N.E. 331; Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, 50 So. 874. sometimes, as in this case, there is imposed upon the abutting owner the duty to construct and to repair at his own expense an......