Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc.
Decision Date | 23 September 1955 |
Citation | 82 So.2d 890 |
Parties | Michael COCKERHAM, a minor, by Quentin Cockerham, as his next friend, and Quentin Cockerham, Appellants, v. R. E. VAUGHAN, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Von Zamft & Kravitz, Miami, and Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellee.
In this tort action the appellant, a 2 1/2 year old child, sought damages for injuries sustained when he fell into a hold 6 X 5 X 6 existing on land of another. He alleged among other things that the appellee dug the hole to install a septic tank pursuant to a contract for that with the owner of the land and negligently left the same wholly unprotected for several weeks with notice or knowledge that small children were attracted thereto.
Depositions were taken of an officer of the appellee corporation and of an owner of the land. Pursuant to motion of appellee, the trail court entered a summary final judgment in its favor.
This case is controlled by Carter v. Livesay Window Co., Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 411, 413, subsequent to the date of the final judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted. Thus it will be observed that the trial court did not have the benefit of that decision before it at the time of the ruling in this case.
Carter v. Livesay Window Co., Inc., supra, arose out of an injury sustained by a minor when a precast concrete window frame fell on him while he was playing in and around a home under construction. The sub-contractor had placed the concrete window frame in position in the early morning of December 1, 1951, knowing that no one connected with the construction would be around the premises over the weekend. It was during this period that the minor, plaintiff in the case, pulled over one of the insecurely placed frames and received the injury. There we said, Moreover, we observed in that case,
It is contended that appellee breached no duty to appellant because it was a contractor not in control of the premises. It is true that appellee was a contractor making an installation on land of another, but that fact is not controlling here. The appellee contractor had not finished the job of installing the septic tank. The liability of the appellee for the artificial condition created by him upon the land of another while the work remained in his charge was exactly co-extensive with that of the possessor of the land. The rule is precisely stated in Vol. II, Restatement, Torts (1934) Sec. 384, as follows:
'One who on behalf of the possessor of land erects a structure or creates any other condition thereon is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same immunity from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land, for bodily harm caused to others within and without the land, while the work is in his charge, by the dangerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Finazzo v. Fire Equip. Co.
...Co. v. Wills , 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo. 1993) ; Duggan v. Esposito , 178 Conn. 156, 159-160, 422 A.2d 287 (1979) ; Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc. , 82 So.2d 890, 891-892 (Fla. 1955) ; Chronopoulos v. Gil Wyner Co. , 334 Mass. 593, 597, 137 N.E.2d 667 (1956) ; Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. , 27......
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...coming within the area made dangerous by it]. NOTE ON USE FOR 401.16c Derived from Restatement (2d) of Torts § 339; Cockerham v. R.E. Vaughan, Inc., 82 So.2d 890 (Fla.1955); Banks v. Mason, 132 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA Fouraker v. Mullis, 120 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Considered together......
-
Marks v. Delcastillo
...broken into.6 As the "occupier" or "possessor" of the property, Marks Brothers stood in the shoes of the owner. See Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., 82 So.2d 890 (Fla.1955).7 Because of this holding, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants' actions may have amounted to wanton ......
-
Lyshak v. City of Detroit
...involved, the consequences of which may well have been anticipated.' Likewise the Supreme Court of Florida, in Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 890, 891, quoting Carter v. Livesay Window Co., Inc., Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 411, "Whether the deceased child was a trespasser upon......