Schutzer v. City of Miami, 58-308
| Decision Date | 25 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-308,58-308 |
| Citation | 105 So.2d 492 |
| Parties | Fannie SCHUTZER and Louis Schutzer Appellants, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Albion & Greenfield and Morton Rosenblum, Miami, for appellants.
William L. Pallot, City Atty., and Clifford B. Selwood, Jr., Miami, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.
This appeal is from a final judgment entered upon a directed verdict granted at the conclusion of the appellants' case.
The appellants sued the City of Miami for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the appellant, Fannie Schutzer, when she fell after catching her shoe in a crack in a sidewalk maintained by the appellee. The appellee was charged with failure to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The appellee answered, denying the allegation of negligence and interposing the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The cause proceeded to trial upon the issues made by the complaint and answer. At the conclusion of appellants' case, and upon appellee's motion, the court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee upon the basis that no liability had been established.
The principal question for determination on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge was in error in directing a verdict at the conclusion of the appellants' case.
The proposition that a duty is imposed upon a municipality to maintain its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition is so well established as to require no citation of authorities to support it. The question of whether or not the testimony of the appellants and their witnesses established a prima facie case sufficient to go to the jury is one which necessarily requires a review of the testimony and evidence adduced at the trial.
The appellant-wife testified, in substance, that on the evening of November 6, 1954, she and her husband alighted from a bus at 13th Avenue and 22nd Street, Southwest, and proceeded to walk toward the Parkway Theater across 13th Avenue; that there was a sundries store on 22nd Street and 13th Avenue and a camera store next door; that while walking along the street east from the corner of 13th Avenue and 22nd Street, she was conversing with her husband and when they reached a point approximately opposite the camera store, her foot became caught in a hole in the sidewalk and she fell, injuring her knee and shin. She further testified that there was no street light immediately west of the area in which she fell, nor were there any lights reflecting from the camera store in the area where the accident occurred; that it was night and the weather was clear, and that she did not see the hole in the sidewalk. The appellant-husband corroborated the circumstances which led up to the appellant-wife's injury and particularly the fact that there were no lights on in the window of the camera shop. He further testified that the defect in the sidewalk into which his wife stepped was approximately three inches deep and was a part of a crack running down the sidewalk a width a approximately six inches and a distance of from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...whose injury claim is made).NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20e City of Tampa v. Johnson, 114 So.2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); Schutzer v. City of Miami, 105 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).401.21 BURDEN OF PROOF ON MAIN CLAIM If the greater weight of the evidence does not support [one or more of] (claimant'......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—-Report Number
...is made).NOTE ON USE FOR 401.20e City of Tampa v. Johnson, 114 So.2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); [130 So.3d 601]Schutzer v. City of Miami, 105 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).401.22 DEFENSE ISSUES If, however, the greater weight of the evidence supports [ (claimant's) claim] [one of more of (claim......
-
Bovio v. City of Miami Springs
...Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So.2d 367 (1941); Leon v. City of Miami, 312 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Schutzer v. City of Miami, 105 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). In our view, the city did not breach any duty owed to Bovio in permitting a newspaper dispenser to be placed on the si......
-
Brown v. Householder, 2316
...of plaintiff's case. See Teare v. Local Union No. 295, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 79; Propper v. Kesner, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 1; Schutzer v. Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 492; Bell v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 224. Thus, in these cases, the admonition in Buckles, supra, tha......