Florida Power & Light Co. v. General Safety Equipment Co., s. 67--977
| Decision Date | 06 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 67--977,67--1006,s. 67--977 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 486 |
| Parties | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Pittman Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, and Robert Nitti, Appellees. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision, Appellant, v. GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Pittman Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation, and Robert Nitti, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole and George W. Wright, Jr., Miami, for Florida Power & Light Co.
John G. Poole, Jr., Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for Dade County.
Spencer & Taylor, Miami, for General Safety Equipment Company.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Pittman Manufacturing Company.
Green & Hastings, Miami, for Robert Nitti.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
On April 14, 1964, Robert Nitti filed suit against Dade County and Florida Power & Light Company for damages for personal injuries, alleging negligence of the two defendants caused his injuries. The injury was suffered when motorized equipment being operated by the county on a public highway came in contact with high voltage lines of the power company. It was alleged the county was negligent in operation of the equipment, and that the power company was negligent in the operation and maintenance of its said lines in that, having knowledge of danger incident to proximity of its high voltage lines to the county's operating machinery, it failed to de-energize the lines or take other protective action. The complaint charged that the negligence of the two defendants separately caused the injury, and in the alternative that their combined negligence was the proximate cause.
The county answered, denying negligence and pleading contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The power company presented a similar answer, and in addition averred the injury was caused by others than itself. Each of the defendants filed a third party complaint against General Safety Equipment Company, herein referred to as General, and Pittman Manufacturing Company, herein referred to as Pittman. Those third party complaints were subsequently amended. They charged negligence in manufacture and assembly, and failure to inspect and to warn the user of the resultant defects, which they alleged were the cause of the injury, if any occurred. The third party plaintiffs prayed for recovery over against General and Pittman in the event...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp.
...183 F.Supp. 149, unless the party making payment is barred by the wrongful nature of his conduct, Florida Power & Light Co. v. General Safety Equip. Co., Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 486. The so-called active-passive tortfeasor principle is recognized in Florida, Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Federal......
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Taylor
...Power would be an Actively rather than a Passively negligent actor and would be denied indemnity. Florida Power & Light Co. v. General Safety Equipment Co., Fla.App.3d 1968, 213 So.2d 486. If on the contrary, it is determined that once it received actual notice of the road construction, Flo......
-
Maybarduk v. Bustamante
...C. Penney Co., supra; Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. B & P Restaurant Corp., Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 804; Florida Power & Light Co. v. General Safety Equip. Co., Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 486; Stembler v. Smith, supra. In Western Electric Corp. v. J. C. Penney Co., supra, the First District in q......
-
Dura Corp. v. Wallace
...manufacturer of the mower. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 45; florida Power & Light Company v. General Safety Equipment Company, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 486; General Motors Corporation v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 192; Hussey Manufacturing Co. v. C......