Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach
| Decision Date | 25 July 1950 |
| Parties | MARTINEAU et al. v. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Horn & Ossinsky, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Alfred A. Green, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The appellants, husband and wife, sued the appellee, city, for damages charged to have been suffered by the wife from the negligent operation of a motor bus by the appellee. Judgment was entered for the latter because the action was not brought within twelve months from the time of the injury, as required by Section 95.24(1), Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A. The appellants now argue that the ruling of the circuit court should be reversed because the statute is so unreasonable and arbitrary in its provision for a shorter period to institute actions against municipalities than against private persons and other corporations as to be unconstitutional.
Even though the city was acting in a proprietary capacity in the operation of the vehicle said to have caused the injury, there was no such discrimination against persons and other corporations similarly engaged as to render the limitation a violation of organic law. We agree with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, in Wilson & Company v. City of Jacksonville, 170 F.2d 876, that this matter may be determined on the authority of Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, 138 So. 486, where it was held that the legislature might impose restrictions on actions against municipal corporations not common to actions against private corporations and individuals engaged in like enterprises. In the latter case the condition involved was a notice of claim as a prerequisite to suit, but the principle is the same. As Judge Waller observed in one case and Mr. Justice Brown in the other, there are many differences between a municipality, existent under Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution, F.S.A., and other corporations or persons that give just reason for distinctions, such as we have here, which do not amount to unconstitutional discriminations.
From their very nature municipal corporations need not be placed in the same category as private corporations or persons. They are created for the benefit of the community as a whole, not for the financial gain of the individual citizens. Any profit from proprietary or corporate operations does not find its way into the pockets of these individual citizens but into the public treasury. By...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Ball Janitorial Service, Inc.
...by jurisprudence in other jurisdictions. See Budahl v. Gordon & David Assoc., 287 N.W.2d 489, 492 [S.D.1980]; Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, 47 So.2d 538, 539 [Fla.1950] and Campbell v. City of Lincoln, 195 Neb. 703, 240 N.W.2d 339, 342-343 [1976]; see also Wilson & Co. v. City of Jack......
-
Luke v. City of St. Petersburg
...and their relationship to the welfare of cities and the protection of municipal treasuries. For illustration, in Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 47 So.2d 538, we commented on the difference between private and municipal corporations and observed, in effect, that judgments against ......
-
Jetton v. Jacksonville Elec. Authority
...to private, corporations even in the operation of proprietary functions were well stated in another context in Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, 47 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla.1950): municipal corporations are created for the benefit of the entire community not individual financial gain, profit f......
-
Parker v. City of Jacksonville
...to suit against the city on such claim. The underlying principle justifying such charter provisions was said, in Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 538, to be the same for and equally applicable to the short limitations period prescribed by Section 95.24 for suits agains......