Moore v. Lanier
Decision Date | 27 November 1906 |
Citation | 42 So. 462,52 Fla. 353 |
Parties | MOORE v. LANIER. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In banc. Error to Circuit Court, Lake County; William S Bullock, Judge.
Action by B. C. Lanier against W. S. Moore. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Grounds of a demurrer, interposed to a declaration, but not argued in the appellate court, will be treated as abandoned.
If a declaration wholly fails to state a cause of action, the appellate court may take notice of it, even though there be no demurrer.
In an action brought to recover damages for property destroyed through the negligence of another, the declaration should allege facts showing the negligence complained of to be a proximate cause of the injury sustained.
Proximate cause is that which naturally leads to or produces, or contributes directly to produce, a result such as might be expected by any reasonable and prudent man as likely to directly and naturally follow or flow out of the performance or nonperformance of any act.
When a person undertakes to connect a storeroom with a gas main by means of pipes, and in doing so carelessly and negligently permits gas to escape from the pipes into the storeroom, and an explosion of the gas occurs therein, such negligent person is liable, in the absence of an intervening independent cause, even though the ignition was caused by some one other than the defendant or his agents, since the gas so negligently allowed to escape into the storeroom was a present and directly contributing cause of the explosion, a result such as might have been expected by any reasonable and prudent man as likely to directly and naturally follow from the escape of gas into a storeroom.
In an action for damages in negligence cases, the plaintiff is not required to negative his own negligence; but the negligence of the plaintiff is a matter to be pleaded by the defendant.
A declaration that alleges that the defendant contracted to connect the storeroom of the plaintiff with acetylene gas mains by service pipes for illuminating purposes, and 'well knowing that the said acetylene gas was highly explosive, did so negligently and carelessly fit, install, and equip the said service pipe in the said storeroom that the gas escaped therefrom into the said storeroom and became ignited, whereby an explosion occurred,' to plaintiff's damage, states a cause of action as against a demurrer assailing the declaration on the ground that it does not allege 'by what means or in what manner the said gas became ignited,' since if the gas was present because of defendant's negligence, and it contributed directly to the explosion, the defendant is liable, even though the ignition was not caused by him. If the plaintiff or his agent or servant caused the ignition, it was a matter to be pleaded by the defendant.
Where a plea of contributory negligence is erroneously stricken, but the defendant is given full opportunity under the general issue to introduce evidence of contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the error is harmless.
Where the rulings of the court in refusing to give several separate and distinct charges are excepted to en masse, the appellate court will go no further than to ascertain if any one of the charges was properly refused, and, if any one of them was properly refused, the assignment fails.
It is not error to refuse charges that do not state the correct propositions of law as applicable to the facts of the case.
J. M. Rivers, for plaintiff in error.
Hocker & Duval and J. B. Gaines, for defendant in error.
On October 3, 1904, the defendant in error brought an action in the circuit court for Lake county against the plaintiff in error; the declaration as amended being as follows:
The defendant demurred to the declaration on several grounds and the demurrer was overruled. As only the fourth ground is argued here, it alone is here quoted, as follows: 'That the plaintiff does not show or allege in his said declaration how, by what means, or in what manner the said gas became ignited.'
Subsequently the defendant moved the court to 'require the plaintiff to state definitely and issuably in his declaration the manner in which the gas became ignited, because the declaration as now framed prejudices, embarrasses, and delays a fair trial of the action in this: (a) Because it is not alleged therein that the defendant was the person liable or by whose fault the gas became ignited; (b) that it is not shown that the explosion of the gas was not the direct fault of the plaintiff; (c) that it is not shown in or by the declaration who fired the said gas, or that the mere fact that the gas escaped caused it to become ignited, without any direct cause or fault of any one.' This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
The following pleas were then filed by the defendant:
The plaintiff's motion 'to strike the defendant's second and third pleas, because the said pleas set forth matters proof of which may be taken under the defendant's first plea,' was granted, and the defendant noted an exception. Issue was joined on the first plea, and at the trial verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff.
The defendant, on writ of error here, assigns as errors:
'(1) Because the court erred in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration.
'(2) Because the court erred in overruling the first ground of the defendant's motion for compulsory amendments, and thereby refused to compel the plaintiff to state how the gas became ignited and who was the cause thereof.
'(3) Because the court erred in sustaining the plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's second and third pleas, and in striking said pleas.
'(4) Because the court erred in admitting over defendant's objection a paper purporting to be an estimate of the cost of putting in the store gas piping and fixtures.
'(5) Because the court erred in sustaining plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's evidence as to who piped the store, and what pipe was used.
'(6) Because the court erred in refusing to give the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth charges, and each of them, asked for by defendant.
'(7) Because the court erred in giving the first and second charges, and each of them, asked for by plaintiff.
'(8) Because the court erred in giving the third charge given of his own motion.
'(9) Because the court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mcmillan v. W.U. Tel. Co.
......455, 98 S.W. 939. Nor did the. defendant's negligence contribute to the loss conjointly. with another cause as in the cases of Moore v. Lanier, 52 Fla. 353, 42 So. 462; Janes v. City of. Tampa, 52 Fla. 292, 42 So. 729, 120 Am. St. Rep. 203;. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Siler, ......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby
...... regarded by the Appellate Court as abandoned.'. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Ashmore, 43 Fla. 272,. 32 So. 832; Moore v. Lanier (Fla.) 42 So. 462;. Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Schmetzer (decided here at the. present term) 43 So. 85. Also see discussion and ......
-
Pettes v. Jones.
......, or aid in producing, that result is a consequence of the event, and the event is the cause of the result.” We quote from Moore v. Lanier, 52 Fla. 353, 42 So. 462, 465, as follows: “Proximate cause is that which naturally leads to or produces, or contributes directly to ......
-
Pettes v. Jones
...or aid in producing, that result is a consequence of the event, and the event is the cause of the result." We quote from Moore v. Lanier, 52 Fla. 353, 42 So. 462, 465, as follows: "Proximate cause is that which naturally leads to or produces, or contributes directly to producing, a result s......