Hewitt v. Venable, 58-385
| Decision Date | 24 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-385,58-385 |
| Citation | 109 So.2d 185 |
| Parties | Nathaniel Welch HEWITT, Appellant, v. James Frank VENABLE, Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Florida corporation, and City of Miami, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellees. . Third District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David Goldman, Miami, for appellant.
William L. Pallot, City Atty., and Boardman, Bolles, Davant & Lloyd, Miami, for City of Miami, appellee.
Plaintiff has appealed from and assigns as error an order entered by the trial court dismissing his complaint as to defendant City of Miami. The record on appeal consists of a stipulated statement as permitted by Rule 3.6, subd. h, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.
The facts recited in the stipulated statement are that the defendant City maintained and manually operated by its agents, servants or employees a traffic control signal on Northwest Eleventh Street at its point of intersection with the tracks of the Florida East Coast Railway Company; that because of negligence of the City's employee in failing to give warning of the dangerous condition caused by the approach toward and into the intersection of a railroad crossing, the vehicle which the plaintiff was driving struck a railroad engine causing the injuries for which damages are sought.
The parties agree that the question posed for our decision is whether a municipal corporation is amenable to a suit sounding in tort where it is alleged that the municipality was negligent in the manual operation of a traffic control signal by and through its servants, agents or employees.
More than one hundred years ago our Supreme Court held that a municipality was liable for damages resulting from its negligent failure to maintain its streets in a safe condition of repair. 1 In decisions which subsequently followed, our court departed from the rule in the Fortune case and drew a distinction between municipal functions performed in a governmental as distinguished from a proprietary capacity. It held that while a municipality may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed in the performance of proprietary functions, it was not liable for the consequence of such acts if committed in the performance of governmental functions. This fictional distinction, grounded as it was upon the ancient premise that the King can do no wrong, was receded from and overruled by our Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hargrove case. 2 It is now the established law of this jurisdiction under the doctrine of respondeat superior that when an individual suffers a direct, personal injury proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal employee while acting within the scope of his employment, the injured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trianon Park Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
...West v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 So. 204 (1933); Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 130 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); Hewitt v. Venable, 109 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); et al. See also Irwin v. Town of Ware, 392 Mass. 745, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (1984), for a cogent examination of the substance ......
-
Cheney v. Dade County
...undertakes the manual operation of a railroad crossing signal toward a motorist attempting to negotiate that crossing, Hewitt v. Venable, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 185, or in placing on police officers a duty not to deprive those with whom they come in contact of their constitutional rights o......
-
O'Hare v. City of Detroit
...330, 208 P.2d 879; Johnston v. City of East Moline, 338 Ill.App. 220, 87 N.W.2d 22, affirmed 405 Ill. 460, 91 N.E.2d 401; Hewitt v. Venable, Fla.App., 109 So.2d 185; Dudum v. City of San Mateo, 167 Cal.App.2d 593, 334 P.2d 968; Irvin v. Padelford, 127 Cal.App.2d 135, 273 P.2d In the Lyle ca......
-
City of Coral Gables v. Giblin, 59-643
...doing an unlawful or prohibited act. See City of Tampa v. Easton, 145 Fla. 188, 198 So. 753.' In the more recent case of Hewitt v. Venable, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 185, this court reiterated the rule established by the Hargrove decision. We recognized in the Hewitt case that liability of a ......