Coombs v. Rice

Citation64 Fla. 202,59 So. 958
PartiesCOOMBS v. RICE.
Decision Date29 October 1912
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Error to Circuit Court, Franklin County; J. W. Malone, Judge.

Action by R. R. Rice against Chauncy B. Coombs. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In an action for a negligent injury to persons or property, it is in general, necessary to allege only ultimate facts showing the relation between the parties out of which the duty to avoid negligence arises under the law, and the act or omission that proximately caused the injury, coupled with an allegation that such act or omission was negligently done or omitted.

Where the allegations of a declaration show a relation of bailor and bailee for mutual benefit between the plaintiff and defendant, out of which relation there arose a duty to use ordinary care for the preservation of a boat, the subject of the bailment, and state that the 'defendant did, by his negligence in fastening said boat or vessel and leaving it unattended at a place exposed to imminent danger from fires negligently permit said boat or vessel to be burned and destroyed by fire,' a cause of action is stated; and in such a case a recovery must be predicated upon proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the burning of the boat as a result of the particular negligence alleged, viz., that the defendant was negligent in fastening the boat and leaving it unattended at the place where it was burned.

Where a bailment is for mutual benefit, the bailee is held to the exercise of ordinary care in relation to the subject-matter thereof, and is responsible only for ordinary negligence.

In an action to recover damages for a negligent injury to property if the evidence does not support the specific allegations of negligence from which the injury proximately resulted, a verdict for the plaintiff is unauthorized, and should be set aside.

COUNSEL R. F. Burdine, of Miami, and Fred T. Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

R. Don McLeod, Jr., of Apalachicola, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

An action was brought by Rice against Coombs to recover damages for a boat of plaintiff's that was burned while in the possession of the defendant.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment, and the defendant took writ of error.

The declaration alleges that the 'plaintiff hired or leased his certain boat or vessel named Mermaid to the defendant, upon consideration that said defendant, in return for the use of such boat or vessel, should repair the machinery on said boat or vessel and return such boat or vessel to plaintiff in good order upon demand, whereupon plaintiff delivered such boat or vessel into the possession of the defendant; and while said boat or vessel was in the possession of the defendant, as aforesaid, defendant did, by his negligence in fastening said boat or vessel and leaving it unattended at a place exposed to imminent danger from fires, negligently permit said boat or vessel to be burned and destroyed by fire, to the great damage of the plaintiff; whereupon plaintiff claims $600 damages.' A demurrer challenges the sufficiency, in law, of the allegations of the declaration.

In an action for a negligent injury to persons or property, it is, in general, necessary to allege only ultimate facts showing the relation between the parties out of which the duty to avoid negligence arises under the law, and the act or omission that proximately caused the injury, coupled with an allegation that such act or omission was negligently done or omitted. Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 409, 57 So. 618.

In this case the relation of the parties as bailor and bailee for mutual benefit, out of which the duty arises, is necessarily included in the allegation that the plaintiff committed his boat to possession of the defendant for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Hudson v. Weiland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 8 Mayo 1942
    ...... the injury. The facts should be clearly stated so that the. duty may plainly appear. See Coombs v. Rice, 64 Fla. 202, 59 So. 958; Co-operative Sanitary Baking Co. v. Shields, 71 Fla. 110, 70 So. 934; Ingram-Dekle Lbr. Co. v. Geiger, 71 ......
  • Hartquist v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 18 Julio 1939
    ...were sufficient to show the relationship of merchant and customer actually existing between plaintiff and defendant. In Coombs v. Rice, 64 Fla. 202, 59 So. 958, the were held sufficient to show a relation of bailor and bailee for mutual benefit between plaintiff and defendant. The declarati......
  • J. Ray Arnold Lumber Co. v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 26 Marzo 1926
    ...... therefore be reversed for a new trial. See Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L. R. A. 1916C, 1208; Coombs v. Rice, 64 Fla. 202, 59 So. 958; Lofton v. Jacksonville Elec. Co., 61 Fla. 293,. 54 So. 959; A. C. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 61 Fla. 93,. 54 So. ......
  • Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bridgeman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 14 Febrero 1938
    ...... law. These facts should be so stated that the duty may appear. plainly from them as alleged. Coombs v. Rice, 64. Fla. 202, 59 So. 958; Co-operative Sanitary Baking Co. v. Shields, 71 Fla. 110, 70 So. 934; Ingram-Dekle. Lumber Company v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT