Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel
| Decision Date | 18 January 1952 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 341 |
| Parties | DOBBS v. SEA ISLE HOTEL et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lucille Snowden, Miami, for appellant.
Goble D. Dean and Brown & Dean, Miami, and Wendell C. Heaton, Tallahassee, for appellees.
Counsel for appellant very frankly confesses that her first question is intended to 'present the facts of this cause and to try to convince this Court that their holding in Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida v. White, 153 Fla. 70, 13 So.2d 595, should be reversed.' Although counsel has presented authorities from other jurisdictions which sustain the view contrary to the one which we expressed in the case of Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. White, supra, we are not convinced that we should 'dance the back step' in connection with our opinion therein. Indeed, upon a careful reconsideration of said case and a restudy of Chapter 440, F.S.A., and particularly Sections 440.02(18) and 440.19(1), we are firmly convinced that we should not recede from our opinion and judgment in the case of Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. White, supra, but should adhere thereto.
We fail to find in any one of the cases cited by counsel for appellant that the court of the foreign jurisdiction was dealing with a statute such as ours which by its own terms, in clear and unambiguous language, defines the phrase 'time of injury' Section 440.02(18) reads as follows: 'The term 'time of injury' means the time of the occurrence of the accident resulting in the injury.' Section 440.19(1) reads as follows: (Emphasis supplied.)
Since the legislature in clear and unambiguous language has defined the expression 'time of injury' to mean the time of the occurrence of the accident resulting in the injury, there is no room for us to theorize; nor are we authorized to place a different construction upon the term 'time of injury' as used in Section 440.19(1).
Counsel for appellant propounds another question which is stated by her in the following language: 'Where the employer/ carrier has failed to perform its statutory duty, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp.
...the fundamental rule of statutory construction that the mention of one thing excludes all other things not mentioned, (Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel (Fla.1952), 56 So.2d 341,) the insurer is thus excluded from the exclusive liability conferred upon the employer. Once again, is may be remarked tha......
-
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Beauvais, 3D14–575.
...entitled to enforce.Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 101 Fla. 1324, 133 So. 569, 573–74 (1931) ; see also Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341, 342 (Fla.1952) (holding that courts must presume that the legislature, in establishing a statute of limitations, "thoroughly considered and purp......
-
Limbaugh v. State
...as a plain legislative decision that search warrants for medical records are not affected by these provisions. See Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341, 342 (Fla.1952) ("The legislature made one exception to the precise language of the statute of limitations. We apprehend that had the legi......
-
Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Garfinkel
...construction, when, as in the present case, a statute articulates exceptions, no other exceptions may be implied. Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So.2d 341 (Fla.1952). Here, because the Legislature identified five exceptions to its grant of immunity, there is no reason to think that another gra......