City of St. Petersburg v. Jaeck
| Decision Date | 04 May 1920 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG v. JAECK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. K. Reaves, Judge.
Action by Ora Mabel Jaeck against the City of St. Petersburg. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where the pleadings establish the rights of an adoptive parent to be 'the same rights as if she had been a natural parent,' a recovery of damages by such adoptive parent under the statute for the wrongful death of a minor adopted child is permissible.
COUNSEL Bayard S. Cook, Freeman P. Lane, and C.J Maurer, all of St. Petersburg, for plaintiff in error.
Howard P. Macfarlane, N. B. K. Pettingill, and Hugh C. Macfarlane all of Tampa, for defendant in error.
The declaration herein alleges:
That the plaintiff, Ora Mabel Jaeck, 'adopted in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, a female child, Areta Ora Mabel Jaeck, at that time of the age of about two years, the natural parents of said child being dead; that said adoption was in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Dominion of Canada, to which laws the child was subject, and gave the said adopted parent the same rights as if she had been a natural parent; that the said minor child had no adopted father, and that the said plaintiff is the sole legal representative of said minor child; that the said plaintiff and her infant child, Areta Ora Mabel Jaeck, were residents of the city of St. Petersburg' on May 12 1913; that on said date there existed in said city on the south side of a public street therein, 'namely, First Avenue North, between Third and Fourth Streets North, an excavation of great size and depth, to wit, about six feet square, and about five feet deep; that that portion of First Avenue North lying between Third and Fourth streets North is within the corporate limits of the city of St. Petersburg; that said excavation had existed for a long period of time prior to the said 13th day of May, A. D. 1913, to wit, three or four weeks, and that the city of St. Petersburg, through its proper officers, knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of said excavation; that on the 13th day of May, A. D. 1913, said excavation was open, unprotected, and unguarded, and had remained open, unprotected, and unguarded for a long period of time prior thereto, to wit, three or four weeks; that the presence of said excavation in said public street in an unguarded condition rendered said public street unsafe for public use; that the said excavation was used for the purpose of slaking lime, and had been so used for a long period of time prior to the 13th day of May, A. D. 1913, to wit, three or four weeks; that the city of St. Petersburg, through its proper officers, knew, or by the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of said use of said excavation; that on the 13th day of May, A. D. 1913, the said excavation contained a large quantity of freshly slaked lime covering the bottom of said excavation to a great depth, to wit, to the depth of about 18 inches; that between the hours of 4 and 5 p. m., on the said 13th day of May, A. D. 1913, the said Areta Ora Mabel Jaeck, infant child of the said plaintiff, aged about three years, being in a lawful manner on the south side of said public street, fell into said excavation so negligently dug and so negligently left open, unprotected, and unguarded into the freshly slaked lime contained in said excavation, and was so badly burned on the legs and body by said freshly slaked lime that as a result of said burns so negligently inflicted the said infant child died on the 15th day of May, A. D. 1913, in the Augusta Memorial Hospital, in the city of St. Petersburg; that the plaintiff has been deprived of the services of said minor child, Areta Ora Mabel Jaeck, as a result of the negligence of the said defendant, and that the said plaintiff has suffered great mental pain and anguish as a result of the death of said minor child so negligently caused; that the said plaintiff has been prostrated with grief, and that her health has been ruined as a result of the negligence of the said defendant; wherefore the said plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of the negligence of the said defendant in the sum of $15,000.'
A second count alleges that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnard v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.
...St. 223, 112 N.E. 586, L.R.A.1916E, 704; In re Estate of Jobson, 164 Cal. 312, 128 P. 938, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 1062; City of St. Petersburg v. Jacek, 79 Fla. 694, 84 So. 622; In re Hunsicker, 65 Cal.App. 114, 223 P. 411; Shaver v. Nash, 181 Ark. 1112, 29 S.W.2d 298, 73 A.L.R. 961; Galveston, H.......
-
Mock v. Evans Light & Ice Co.
... ... parents of the child were dead. St. Petersburg v ... Jaeck, 79 Fla. 694, 84 So. 622. The statute has also ... been construed to give to the ... ...