City of St. Petersburg v. Roach
| Citation | 148 Fla. 316,4 So.2d 367 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG v. ROACH et al. |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Carroll R. Runyon and Harry I. Young, both of St Petersburg, for plaintiff in error.
Booth & Dickinson, of St. Petersburg, for defendants in error.
The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the circuit court, tripped in a depression in a sidewalk, with which she was unfamiliar, in the city of St. Petersburg, suffered painful injuries and in her suit for redress was given a verdict by the jury later sanctioned by the court when motion for new trial was denied and judgment entered.
In presenting its position in this court the plaintiff in error has urged reversal of the judgment of the lower court principally because of alleged error on the part of the jury in their interpretation of the facts presented by the witnesses. This court is asked to give a definite ruling on the dimensions of depressions in sidewalks rendering recovery for injuries because of them actionable, not only for the purpose of disposing of the instant case, but also as a guide to courts and parties in actual or contemplated litigation.
We cannot undertake to fix with mathematical nicety the proportions of flaws in the sidewalks maintained by municipalities which may result in actionable injury to pedestrians. Cases in which damages are sought because of such defects must depend to great degree upon circumstances of each incident. For instance, darkness (City of Key West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 So. 808); obscurity because of grass (City of Clearwater v. Gautier et al., 119 Fla. 476, 161 So 433); a covering of ice and snow (Isaacson v. City of Boston, 195 Mass. 114, 80 N.E. 809); the slickness of light snow (Hamilton v. City of Buffalo, 173 N.Y 72, 65 N.E. 944); a loose flagstone (Emery v. City of Pittsburgh, 275 Pa. 551, 119 A. 603) have been important factors in fixing responsibility of municipal corporations.
It is well established by respectable authority that the city is not an insurer of the pedestrian and that in the miles of sidewalks in a modern city there may well be many defects which may result in injury to the unwary walker but which are not of such character as would justify fastening responsibility on the municipality for the mishaps, because to do so would amount to insurance.
It is written in McQuillan Municipal Corporations, 2d Ed., Vol. 7, p. 163 that one may not recover for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grier v. Metropolitan Dade County
...court: While a city is not an insurer of the motorist or the pedestrian who travels its streets and sidewalks, City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So.2d 367 [1941], it is responsible, of course, for damages resulting from defects which have been in existence so long that they c......
-
Bovio v. City of Miami Springs
...of the safety of pedestrians who traverse its streets. Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla.1952); City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So.2d 367 (1941); Leon v. City of Miami, 312 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Schutzer v. City of Miami, 105 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). I......
-
Mullis v. City of Miami
...the jury. 'While a city is not an insurer of the motorist or the pedestrian who travels its streets and sidewalks, City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So.2d 367, it is responsible, of course, for damages resulting from defects which have been in existence so long that they coul......
-
Anderson v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp.
...agree that a purported defect is so minor that no danger to pedestrians could reasonably be foreseen."); City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So.2d 367, 368 (1941) (en banc) ("We cannot undertake to fix with mathematical nicety the proportions of flaws in the sidewalks maintaine......