Rose v. Peters
| Decision Date | 14 September 1955 |
| Citation | 82 So.2d 585 |
| Parties | Bertha ROSE, a widow, Appellant, v. Hugh PETERS, Preston B. Bird, I. D. MacVicar, Jesse Yarborough, Harold Turk, asThe Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, constituting theDade County Port Authority, and Aerodex, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Irving Cypen, L. J. Cushman and Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford & Williams, Charles A. Kimbrell and Douglas M. Carlton, Miami, for Dade County Port Authority.
Arthur S. Clark, Jr., Miami, for Aerodex, Inc.
Dade County Port Authority engaged Guaranty Roofing Company, hereinafter referred to as 'Roofing Company,' to make repairs on Miami International Airport upon a cost plus contract, the Roofing Company to furnish materials and equipment. October 19, 1950, the roofing crew under supervision of Mr. Czepiel was directed to Hanger No. 2 which was occupied by Aerodex, Inc., to begin the repairs. The dangerous condition of the roof was pointed out to Mr. Czepiel who was an experienced roof mechanic and fully explained to him. He instructed the crew as to the dangerous condition of the roof and ordered them on it to begin repairs. Soon after the crew commenced work, Mr. Alex J. Rose, vice president of the Roofing Company and an experienced engineer, climbed the ladder where the crew was working. Mr. Czepiel was working near him and told him of the dangerous condition of the roof and warned him to walk upon a rafter which was pointed out to him. He had previously been given knowledge of the dangerous condition of the roof. He took a few steps on the rafter, as he was instructed to do, but accidentally missed it and fell through the roof to the cement floor and was killed instantly.
This action was brought by Bertha Rose, widow of Alex J. Rose, to recover damages for his death. The complaint is grounded on the theory that deceased met death in an attempt to rescue his men who were placed in a position of great danger and peril due to the negligence of defendants. Answers to the complaint denied all allegations of negligence and proffered pleas of contributory negligence on the part of decedent. The case came on for trial before a jury but at the close of plaintiff's case, the court granted motions for directed verdict in favor of both defendants. A new trial was denied and the plaintiff appealed.
Several questions are urged for determination, but the real issue in the case is whether or not what is known as the 'rescue doctrine,' relied on by appellant, is applicable to this case.
It is true that the 'rescue doctrine' may be invoked in a personal injury action to offset contributory negligence provided the attempted rescue is not recklessly or rashly done or the defendant was not guilty of negligence to the person rescued nor did such person contribute to his peril by placing himself in a position of danger not necessary to effect the rescue. Lolli v. Market St. R. Co., 43 Cal.App.2d 166, 110 P.2d 436, 438.
We are convinced that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adair v. The Island Club
...injury to a rescuer without the independent intervening action of a third party is within the foreseeability test. He cites Rose v. Peters, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 585, to show that Florida has recognized the rescue doctrine. In that case the Court held that the rescue doctrine could not be invo......
-
Zivojinovich v. Barner
...does not "contribute to his [own] peril by placing himself in a position of danger not necessary to effect the rescue." Rose v. Peters, 82 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla.1955); Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("For the rescue doctrine to come into play ... the ......
-
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Korte, 76-1427
...the rescue doctrine could be invoked in a personal injury action to offset contributory negligence on the part of a rescuer, Rose v. Peters, 82 So.2d 585 (Fla.1955), but there has been no detailed analysis of the doctrine. In most cases where it has been considered, our appellate courts hav......
-
ARDC Corp. v. Zell
...other points urged by the parties for reversal. Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 381 So.2d 229 (Fla.1980); Rose v. Peters, 82 So.2d 585 (Fla.1955); Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270, 9 So.2d 369 Kingswharf, Ltd. v. Kranz, 545 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Sundale Associates, L......