Moore v. City of St. Petersburg
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--238,72--238 |
| Citation | 281 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | Willie Lee MOORE, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
I. W. Williams, Minnis & Williams, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
B. Edwin Johnson, Asst. City Atty., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
PIERCE, (Ret.), Judge.
The plaintiff Moore has appealed a final judgment entered in a negligence action for defendant City of St. Petersburg notwithstanding the jury verdict in favor of Moore. The City has cross-assigned as error the court's failure to direct a verdict in its favor on the ground that the evidence failed to establish a direct transaction or confrontation between Moore and the City or any of its agents or employees regarding the operation of a governmental function.
Moore filed suit in the lower Court for injuries sustained when he fell in a sink hole located in an alley behind his home, alleging among other things that the City owned and maintained a system of sewers for the City and was duty bound to supervise, maintain and keep said sewer system in good and proper repair; that the City for a period of time prior to the accident and that Plaintiff 'fell into the heretofore mentioned caved-in sewer area, causing injuries.'
The only affirmative defenses raised by the City were (1) sole proximate cause and (2) assumption of risk. It did not raise governmental immunity as an affirmative defense, nor did it amend its pleadings at any point to raise such defense. However, at the close of the plaintiff's case the City moved for a directed verdict on the ground of governmental immunity.
The lower Court based its order granting the motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict on the ground that Moore did not produce competent evidence to establish that the City was placed on actual notice of the alleged defect or that the alleged defect existed for such a long period of time that the City would have had constructive notice thereof.
Even if the appellant had produced competent evidence of actual or constructive notice to the City, the motion for directed verdict should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast Utilities, Inc.
...must be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports its decision. Applegate, 377 So.2d at 1152; Moore v. City of St. Petersburg, 281 So.2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 289 So.2d 730 (Fla.1973). Here, as noted above, the evidence amply supports the court's decision as to B......
-
State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Div. of Highway Patrol v. Kropff, 84-2617
...DCA 1980); Wooten v. Collins, 327 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Governmental immunity may be raised at any time. Moore v. City of St. Petersburg, 281 So.2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 289 So.2d 730 (Fla.1973). Appellee's contention that footnote two in Our Lady of Divine Providence Cat......
-
Postell v. State, 79-1376
...Congregation Temple De Hirsch v. Aronson, 128 So.2d 585 (Fla.1961); Green v. Bruns, 102 So.2d 610 (Fla.1958); Moore v. City of St. Petersburg, 281 So.2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Leavstrom v. Muston, 119 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Postell was, in fact, ineligible for classification as a yo......
-
Mt. Carmel Medical Center v. Board of County Com'rs of Labette County, 48317
...that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, but is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time. (Moore v. City of St. Petersburg, 281 So.2d 549 (Fla.App.1973).) In view of the trial court's consideration of the issue and our decision, we need not determine whether governmenta......