Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 30956
Decision Date | 16 June 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 30956,30956 |
Citation | 131 So.2d 483 |
Parties | Raul ESCARRA, Petitioner, v. WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioner.
Lally & Miller, Miami, Paul E. Speh and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for respondent.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission reversing an award of compensation entered by a deputy commissioner in favor of the petitioner who was the claimant below. The only issue before this court is whether the deputy properly held that the failure of the claimant to give notice of his injury as required by Section 440.18, F.S.A. was excusable. Section 440.18 provides that notice of injury in writing shall be given by an employee to an employer within 30 days after the date of injury. Subsection (4) of that section provides:
In the case before us it appeared that the claimant, a 17 year old Cuban boy, suffered an injury to his nose when in the course of his employment as a grocery 'bag boy' a case of beer which he was attempting to remove from a shelf fell and hit him on the nose. His nose bled and caused him some pain but after he was able to stop the bleeding within about 10 minutes after the accident he thought no more about it. He made no report of the incident to his employer until several months later following consultation with a physician about his difficulty in breathing. The doctor who examined him testified that the claimant was suffering from a deformed septum which could have been caused by the accident concerning which the claimant testified.
The deputy commissioner found as a matter of fact that the claimant did not know that he was under a duty to report the accident and excused his failure to give notice on the basis of this lack of knowledge. The full commission reversed the award of the deputy on the ground that the findings of the deputy were insufficient as a matter of law to excuse the failure to give notice.
It appears that the deputy erred in his statement of the reasons justifying the claimant's failure to give notice. In effect the deputy excused this failure because of the claimant's ignorance and lack of experience. Under our holding in Tomberlin v. City of Miami, Fla., 117 So.2d 735, 736, the test of whether a failure to give notice can be excused is '* * * whether the claimant prosecuted his claim with that degree of diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances * * *'. Since the standard set up by this case is that of a reasonable, prudent man it was improper for the deputy to base his finding on the factors of ignorance and inexperience peculiar to this particular claiman...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. Matthews
...in this state that a correct decision can be supported on grounds other than those assigned by the lower court. Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 483; Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 77; City of Miami Beach v. 8701 Collins Ave., Inc.,......
-
Scarfo v. Peever
...decision denying acceleration and foreclosure can be justified on other grounds it should be affirmed. See Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483, 485 (Fla.1961); Green v. Bruns, 102 So.2d 610 (Fla.1958). The evidence before the trial court showed that after the complaint was fil......
-
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 55345
...§ 296; In Re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla.1970); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So.2d 21 (4th DCA Fla. 1967); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961). However, a misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E. g.,......
-
Jones v. State
...reason or basis to support it." In re Estate of Yohn, 238 So.2d 290, 295 (Fla.1970) (emphasis added); see also Escarra v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961). 6 I join the first two sentences of footnote three, but do not join the remainder of footnote three, or footnote four.......
-
Tipping the ole tipsy coachman over in his grave: an inequity of appellate review.
...Yohn's Estate, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1967); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1961)); Muina v. Canning, 717 So. 2d 550, 553 n.3 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1998); Pan Am. Stone Co. v. Landry, 526 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 4th ......