Cristiani v. City of Sarasota
| Decision Date | 23 June 1953 |
| Citation | 65 So.2d 878 |
| Parties | CRISTIANI v. CITY OF SARASOTA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Clyde H. Wilson, Sarasota, for appellant.
Williams, Dart & Bell, Sarasota, for appellee.
In March, 1951, Nadio Cristiani, a minor, by his next friend, Adolph Cristiani, filed suit against the City of Sarasota to recover damages for personal injuries. The second amended complaint in substance alleged that on November 8, 1948, a servant of the city acting within the scope of his employment carelessly and negligently backed a truck of the city against the tricycle of Nadio Cristiani causing him to be thrown to the ground and sustain violent blows on his head and body which resulted in blindness of the right eye which was not discovered till March, 1950. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted on the theory that it failed to state a cause of action. Final judgment was entered for defendant, from which this appeal was prosecuted.
The point for determination is whether or not the action was barred by the statute of limitations, Section 95.24, F.S.A., the pertinent part of which is 'No action shall be brought against any city or village for any negligent or wrongful injury or damage to person or property unless brought within twelve months from the time of the injury or damages.'
Casual reading of the statute discloses that any action for damages against the city for injury or damage to person or property must be brought within 12 months. In this case it is pointed out that plaintiff was a minor six years of age at the time of his injury but that its full import, his blindness, did not materialize, or was not known, for 18 months or more, at which time the action was brought. It is contended that under such circumstances, the latter date should be construed as the date the action accrued as well as the date the statute of limitations begins to run.
The general rule seems to be that actions for personal injury based on the wrongful or negligent act of another accrue at the time of the injury and that the statute of limitations begins to run at the same time. The running of the statute is not postponed even though the injury may not materialize or be discovered till later. 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 169; 34 Am.Jur., Limitations of Actions, § 160; Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. White, 153 Fla. 70, 13 So.2d 595.
There is some controversy about the meaning of the language 'or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke v. Housen
...invasion of a legal right of the plaintiff, even though notice of its consequences does not materialize until later. Cristiani v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 878 (child struck violently about head by negligence of another, blindness developing as a result after statute had run; rec......
-
Hearndon v. Graham
...that the concepts of "accrual" and "tolling" have become blurred. Initially, Florida followed the rule stated in Cristiani v. City of Sarasota, 65 So.2d 878, 879 (Fla.1953): that actions for personal injury based on the wrongful or negligent act of another accrue at the time of the injury a......
-
Nardone v. Reynolds
...a later date. 34 Am.Jur. 126, Sec. 160, Limitation of Actions. 'This rule was applied by this Court in the case of Cristiana (Cristiani) v. city of Sarasota, 65 So.2d 878, which case is relied upon strongly by appellant. In that case a servant of the city, acting within the scope of his emp......
-
Town of Miami Springs v. Lawrence
...Henderson v. Talbott, 1954, 175 Kan. 615, 266 P.2d 273; annotation in 5 A.L.R.2d pp. 302 et seq. It is true that in Cristiani v. Sarasota, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 878, 879, a case involving injury to the person, this court interpreted § 95.24, supra, as requiring a suit for 'damage to property' ......