Crum v. Sumter County

Decision Date29 October 1914
Citation66 So. 723,68 Fla. 122
PartiesCRUM v. SUMTER COUNTY.
CourtFlorida 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

SYLLABUS

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.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The declaration herein is as follows:

'C. E. Crum, by his undersigned attorney, sues the defendant, Sumter county, a political subdivision of the state of Florida, for that the said plaintiff on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1912, was, and from thence hitherto has been and still is, lawfully seized and possessed of the following described lands situate, lying, and being in Sumter county, Fla., to wit: Southeast quarter of section 34, township 21 south, range 22 east; and at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, the said plaintiff was the owner of a growing crop of cucumbers on said lands of great value, upon which the said plaintiff had incurred and expended large sums of money in the breaking up of said lands, the cultivation thereof, and in the fertilization of said crop of growing cucumbers, which had been planted and was being raised by the said plaintiff for market.
'At the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, there was, and now is a public road or highway from Sumterville to Center Hill in said county, and a public road or highway from Sumterville to Webster in said county, over and concerning which public roads, as well as the other public roads of said county of Sumter, the county commissioners of said county were vested with the general superintendence, and the said county commissioners of said county were charged with the duty under the law of keeping the same in good repair.

'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
5 cases
  • City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1932
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1924
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1956
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1935
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • 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