Davis v. Florida Power Co.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1913
• Citation: 64 Fla. 246,60 So. 759
• Parties: DAVIS v. FLORIDA POWER CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

60 So. 759

64 Fla. 246

DAVIS v. FLORIDA POWER CO.

Florida Supreme Court

January 11, 1913

Error to Circuit Court, Citrus County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

Action by James T. Davis against the Florida Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where it is apparent that substantive portions of a statute have been omitted and repealed by the process of revision and re-enactment, courts have no express or implied authority to supply the omissions that are material and substantive and not merely clerical and inconsequential; for that would in effect be the enactment of substantive law. The statute in such a case should be effectuated as the language actually contained in the latest enactment warrants; and words that were a part of the omitted substantive provisions, but are useless as re-enacted, may be disregarded as mere surplusage and appropriate effect should be given to the connected and complete terms and provisions as they appear in the re-enacted statute, when it can be done without violating the organic law or the legislative intent.

In determining the legality and effect of a statutory regulation, the court should ascertain the legislative intent; and, if the ascertained intent will permit, the enactment should be construed and effectuated so as to make it conform to rather than violate applicable provisions and principles of the state and federal Constitutions, since it must be assumed that the Legislature intended the enactment to comport with the fundamental law.

The discretion of the Legislature, when exercised for the public welfare in selecting the subjects of police regulations and in determining the nature and extent of such regulations, is limited only by the requirements of the fundamental law that the regulations shall not invade private rights secured by the Constitution, and shall not be merely arbitrary in applying to some persons, and not to others similarly conditioned.

Where a statute does not violate the federal or state Constitution the legislative will is supreme; and its policy is not subject to review by the courts, whose province is not to regulate, but to effectuate the policy of the law as expressed in valid statutes.

The right to equal protection of the laws is not denied by a state enactment, when its provisions are not forbidden by the Constitution, and it is apparent that the same law is applicable to all persons in the state under similar circumstances and conditions.

The inhibition that no state shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws was designed to prevent any person, or class of persons, from being singled out as a special subject for arbitrary and unjust discrimination and hostile legislation.

Where there is a reasonable and practical ground of classification for legislative regulations under the police power, the classification should be sustained, even though some other classification or the absence of specific classifications would appear to some minds to be more in accord with the general welfare, since the discretion of selecting the subjects of police regulations, and the nature and extent of such regulations, must be left to the general lawmaking power, where there is no undoubted and irreconcilable conflict between the regulations and the provisions and principles of organic law.

There is a reasonable and just basis for a legislative classification that includes all corporations and all private associations of persons, but does not include single individuals, in a regulation affording a remedy to a parent for the wrongful death of a minor child.

Section 3147 of the General Statutes gives the elements of the damages that may be recovered thereunder; and the mere fact that the amount of the damages is left to the discretion of the jury does not make the statute violative of the constitutional guaranty of due process of law, since the finding is regulated by applicable principles of law, and the verdict rendered is subject to approval by the trial court and to such appellate review as may be provided by law for the correction of material and prejudicial errors, if any occur in the trial of the cause.

Where a declaration states a cause of action, and a demurrer thereto is erroneously sustained, a judgment consequent upon the demurrer will be reversed.

COUNSEL

G. W. Scofield, of Inverness, and W. K. Zewadski of Ocala, for plaintiff in error.

R. L Anderson, of Ocala, for defendant in error. This writ of error was taken to a judgment for the defendant in an action brought against the Florida Power Company, a corporation, by James T. Davis to recover damages accruning to the plaintiff, under the statute, for the death of plaintiff's minor son, caused by the alleged wrongful act of the defendant corporation. A demurrer to the original declaration was sustained by the trial court, on the ground that it 'wholly fails to state a cause of action under the statute.' The following amended declaration was filed:

'James T. Davis, as the father of Baskin H. Davis, a minor child of the age of 17 years, now deceased, by G. W. Scofield and W. K. Zewadski, his attorneys, sues the Florida Power Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida and doing business in the county of Citrus, state of Florida, for that the said defendant heretofore, to wit, on and before the 10th day of June, A. D. 1911, was the owner of and did operate, manage and control a certain electric light and power plant, with its machinery, wires, and appliances, at a place commonly known as Camp's dam, at a point on the Withlacoochee river in said county of Citrus, state of Florida, aforesaid; that the said power plant, by means of a system of wires, conveyed an electric current to various points and places for commercial purposes, said system consisting of three immense wires which were suspended in close relation to each other, and only a few feet over and across a certain concrete walk at the said power plant; that, on or about the morning of the 10th day of June, A. D. 1911, the immediate vicinity of the said power plant, owned, managed, and controlled by the defendant, as aforesaid, was thronged with people visiting the said plant and having a picnic; that the deceased, Baskin H. Davis, in company with others, was viewing the premises, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, its agents, servants, and employés, and the deceased and others, being ignorant of the dangerous character of the premises, and presuming, and having a right to presume, that the defendant, its agents, servants, and employés, would not permit him to get in harm's way, or be injured or killed, or that the defendant, its agents, servants, or employés, would do anything likely to cause injury or death, did, in company with other persons, pass under, by stooping, the said wires, suspended over and across the concrete walk, as aforesaid, in going out upon the said walk to view the premises, as aforesaid, without any notice or warning being given by the defendant, its agents, servants, or employés, of any danger in passing under the wires or being upon the said walk, and while the deceased, with other persons was standing on the said concrete walk, viewing the premises, as aforesaid, the defendant, its agents, servants, and employés, in charge of the said plant, well knowing at the time that the said Baskin H. Davis and other persons had passed under the said wires and were then on the said walk, and would be compelled to return and again pass under the said wires, and knowing the danger to them in such position, yet the defendant, without notice or warning to the said Baskin H. Davis and the other persons, negligently and carelessly caused the electric power in said premises, and which was under the control and operation of the defendant, to be suddenly turned on, whereby, and by reason of the sudden turning on of the said electric power, the deceased received an electric shock, from the effects of which electric shock the said Baskin H. Davis instantly died; and the plaintiff says that by reason of the negligence of the defendant corporation in turning on said electric power his said child was killed.

'By reason whereof, and by reason of the premises, the plaintiff, as the father of the said Baskin H. Davis, his minor child, now deceased, has been greatly damaged in the loss of the services of the said minor child, and has sustained great mental pain and suffering, hence this suit; and plaintiff claims damages $30,000.

'Second Count.

'And the plaintiff further sues the defendant, for that the said defendant heretofore, to wit, on and before the 10th day of June, A. D. 1911, was the owner of and did operrate, manage, and control a certain electric light and power plant, with its machinery, wires, and appliances, at a place commonly known as Camp's dam, at a point on the Withlacoochee river in the county of Citrus and state of Florida, as aforesaid; that the said power plant, by means of a system of wires, conveyed an electrical current to various points and places for commercial purposes, said system consisting of three immense wires which were suspended in close proximity to each other, and only a few feet above, over, and across a certain concrete walk at the said power plant; that on or about the morning of the said 10th day of June, A. D. 1911, the immediate vicinity of the said power plant, owned, managed, and controlled by the defendant, as aforesaid, was thronged with people visiting the said plant and having a picnic; that the deceased, Baskin H. Davis, in company with other persons, was viewing

...