Crum v. Sumter County
Decision Date | 29 October 1914 |
Citation | 66 So. 723,68 Fla. 122 |
Parties | CRUM v. SUMTER COUNTY. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Sumter County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Action by C. E. Crum against Sumter County. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In an action against a municipal corporation for negligent injuries, the gist of the action is the negligence for which the corporation is liable; and it is essential to allege in the declaration ultimate facts whowing the relation out of which arose the duty of the corporation to exercise appropriate care with reference to the rights of the plaintiff, and also the negligent act or omission or commission for which the corporation is responsible, that proximately caused the injury complained of, the specific ultimate fact that actually caused the injury being duly alleged, so that a definite issue may be presented for trial.
Where a county is authorized by law to grade and improve its streets as the public good requires, and there is no statute or valid contract providing for consequential damages incurred, a declaration, claiming damages for injury to property caused by grading and improving the streets, is demurrable when the declaration contains no allegation of a diversion of the street from proper street purposes, or of a physical invasion of or trespass upon the property, or of malice, negligence or unskillfulness in the use or improvement of the street for street purposes to the injury of the plaintiff.
COUNSEL R. A. Burford, of Ocala, and A. M. Roland, of Bushnell, for plaintiff in error.
J. C B. Koonce, of Bushnell, for defendant in error.
The declaration herein is as follows:
'Plaintiff avers that the county commissioners of said county of Sumter, having the superintendence of the public roads within said county, and charged with the duty under the law of keeping the same in good repair as aforesaid, did, on about the 1st day of May, A. D. 1912, and subsequent thereto, and prior to the commencement of plaintiff's action, and for the purpose of benefiting and keeping in repair the said public roads above mentioned, cut and dig and open, or cause to be dug, cut, and opened, a certain canal, ditch, drain, or trench to prevent the said public roads from being submerged with water, or to relieve the same from a swampy and marshy condition, the said canal ditch, or drain being upon, through, and across other lands in the vicinity of said public roads, and thereby caused a large...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer
... ... Error ... to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge ... Suit by ... the City of Jacksonville against P. F ... L. R. A. 370, 29 Am. St. Rep. 278; Bowden v. Jacksonville, 52 ... Fla. 216, 42 So. 394; Crum v. Sumter County, 68 Fla. 122, 66 ... So. 723; Cawthon v. Town of De Funiak Springs, 88 Fla. 324, ... ...
-
Cawthon v. Town of De Funiak Springs
... ... be granted ... [102 So. 251] ... [88 Fla. 325] Appeal from Circuit Court, Walton County; A. G ... Campbell, judge ... COUNSEL ... D ... Stuart Gillis, of De ... Rep. R. A. 370, 29 Am. St. Rep. 278; ... Dorman v. 241, 61 So. 503, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1290; Crum v ... Sumter County, 68 Fla. 122, 66 So. 723 ... In ... Florida municipalities are ... ...
-
Weir v. Palm Beach County
...exception for the reason that the complaint does not allege negligence in the excavation work in the case before us. See Crum v. Sumter County, 68 Fla. 122, 66 So. 723. We find no Florida case directly on this point. However, the Supreme Court of Alabama in H. H. Parker & Bro v. Hodgson, 17......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Rutledge
... ... En ... Error ... to Circuit Court, Duval County; DeWitt T. Gray, Judge ... Action ... by Virginia Mitchell Rutledge and husband against ... 370, 29 Am.St.Rep. 228; Bowden v. City of ... Jacksonville, 52 Fla. 216, 42 So. 394; Crum v ... Sumter County, 68 Fla. 122, 66 So. 723 ... In ... Gonzalez v. City of ... ...