Somers v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 28 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. F-457,F-457 |
| Citation | 171 So.2d 598 |
| Parties | Philip C. SOMERS, Appellant, v. Robert V. MEYERS and William A. Meyers, co-partners, doing business as the Riviera Country Club and Driving Range, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brass, Strong, Judge & Stern, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Warren H. Cobb, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & Sands, Daytona Beach, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment for defendants in a negligence action arising out of an accident involving a dump trailer-tractor, operated by plaintiff, which came in contact with electric power lines located on defendants' business premises, thus causing electric current to be transmitted through said trucking equipment and into plaintiff's body, resulting in injuries for which he claimed damages.
The complaint charged, in substance, that defendants permitted a power company to run an energized and uninsulated hightension electric power line across their golf course and thereafter contracted with plaintiff's employer, not a party to this cause, to perform certain work upon the golf course in the vicinity of said power line; that in performing such work plaintiff operated a dump truck of such height when elevated that defendants should have known it would probably come into contact with said power line; that defendants negligently failed to warn the power company that said work was to be performed or to warn the plaintiff or his employer that said high-tension wires were uninsulated; and that as a proximate result of said negligence the dump truck operated by plaintiff came in contact with said wires and conducted electric energy into plaintiff's body, causing him to suffer severe bodily injuries and other losses for which he sought damages. Defendants' answer denied the alleged negligence, asserted that plaintiff assumed the risk, and charged the plaintiff with contributory negligence.
Interrogatories were addressed to the plaintiff and defendants and their answers filed. Requests for admissions were addressed to the defendants and their responses filed. The depositions of the plaintiff and defendants and of several witnesses were taken and filed.
Thereupon the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the pleadings, depositions and proofs show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that they were therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted and summary final judgment entered, hence this appeal.
Appellant contends that the pleadings and proofs do show the existence of a genuine issue of fact, first, on the question of whether the accident was foreseeable by defendants, it being asserted that if such is the case, the duty devolved on defendants to warn plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition of the premises resulting from the location thereon of said uninsulated and energized high-tension electric power lines, and secondly, on the question of whether the pleadings and proofs show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Treating the pleadings and proofs in the light most favorable to appellant, against whom the summary judgment was entered, it appears that since November 1953 denfendants have operated a golf course on the premises and during that period said powerline poles and uninsulated high-tension power lines have been located thereon and transmitting electricity; that defendants did not know that the wires were not insulated or that they were high-tension electric wires; that in 1963 defendants engaged upon a project to improve the greens and fairways of said golf course and contracted with plaintiff's employer to perform part of the work. On August 29, 1963, the plaintiff, in the course of employment, was operating a dump truck in carrying a load of sand to one of the greens. In dumping the sand on the green he elevated the dump trailer which came in contact with the electric power line which at that point was strung approximately 26 feet above the ground at the front of the truck and 30 feet above the ground at the rear thereof; the trailer thereby became a conduit for the electricity which flowed from thence into plaintiff's body. The plaintiff had descended from the truck in order to manually operate a broken cable thereon which was part of the dump trailer mechanism, and when the accident occurred was under the trailer in the act of releasing the air brake thereon so as to be able to move it out of a hole in which it was stuck at the time. There were no eyewitnesses and plaintiff does not remember precisely when his body received the electric shock. From the time he got out of the cab until he crawled under the trailer to bleed the air brake, he never looked up.
Plaintiff had been a truck driver for approximately eight years and for four years prior had been an automotive mechanic in the Air Force. For approximately six months prior to the accident he was continuously employed as driver of the dump trailer-tractor in suit. While his employer gave him no warning concerning the electric wires at defendants' job site, he had warned him generally, as plaintiff testified by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angel v. U.S.
...of electrically energized wires is [sic] known to all except those of tenderest age.' " Id. at 1401 (quoting Somers v. Meyers, 171 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1965)). Second, in Palaidis, on two prior occasions, government inspectors had observed plaintiffs working in close proximity to......
-
Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Carson
...of potential danger when the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition of his premises. Somers v. Meyers, Fla.App.1st, 1965, 171 So.2d 598. However, it is generally held that the duty is satisfied by notice to the contractor or supervisory personnel. See Fla. Power......
-
Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co.
...superior to that reasonably obtainable by the invitee. Rist v. Florida Power & Light Company, 254 So.2d 540 (Fla.1971); Somers v. Meyers, 171 So.2d 598 (Fla.1st DCA 1965); Quinelly v. Southern Maid Syrup Company, supra. Such is not the case on the facts before Therefore we affirm the decisi......
-
Palaidis v. United States
...were not engaged in inherently dangerous work and thus defendant did not owe plaintiffs a higher degree of care. See Somers v. Meyers, 171 So.2d 598 (1st Fla. DCA 1965); Quinnelly v. Southern Maid Syrup Company, 164 So.2d 240 (2d Fla. DCA 1964). In Somers the landowner-employer had hired an......