Stark v. Holtzclaw
Decision Date | 25 July 1925 |
Citation | 105 So. 330,90 Fla. 207 |
Parties | STARK v. HOLTZCLAW et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Action by Frederick Stark, by his next friend, Herman W. Stark against J. G. Holtzclaw, receiver of the Pensacola Electric Company, and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Person responsible for natural and probable consequences of act reasonably foreseen. One is held responsible for all the consequences of his act which are natural and probable, and ought to have been foreseen by a reasonably prudent man. (Per Whitfield, J.)
Highest degree of care imposes duty to guard only against occurrences reasonably to be anticipated by utmost foresight. Even where the highest degree of care is demanded, still the one from whom it is due is bound to guard only against those occurrences which can reasonably be anticipated by the utmost foresight. (Per Whitfield, J.)
Liability of owner of premises for injuries to child attracted by character of structure or conditions, stated. An infant who enters upon premises, having no legal right to do so, either by permission, invitation, or license, or relation to the premises or its owner, is as essentially a trespasser as an adult; but if, to gratify a childish curiosity, or in obedience to a childish propensity, excited by the character of the structure or other conditions, he goes thereon, and is injured by the failure of the owner to properly guard or cover the dangerous conditions which he has created, the owner is liable for such injuries, provided the facts are such as to impose the duty of anticipation or prevision; that is, whether, under all of the circumstances, he should have contemplated that children would be attracted or allured to go upon his premises, and sustain injury. (Per Whitfield, J.)
Those using electricity bound to use care in proportion to danger. Electricity is an invisible force, highly dangerous to life and property, and those who make, sell, distribute, and use it are bound to use care in proportion to the danger involved. (Per Whitfield, J.)
Those transmitting electricity not insurers of safety. Electric companies or persons engaged in transmitting electrical current for use are not insurers of the safety of children or adults, and are not held to a degree of care, prudence, and foresight beyond which prudent and careful persons have to exercise in such circumstances. (Per Whitfield, J.)
Declaration held to allege cause of action for injury to child from contact with electric wire. Allegations that the defendant electric railway company did carelessly and negligently place electric wires of high and dangerous voltage and defective and worn insulation, between the limbs and through the branches and foliage of a magnolia tree, of great height and unmerous limbs and low hanging branches, on defendant's right of way directly across the track from defendant's depot or station and unfenced; that at the time and for many years there had been and was located a public primary school adjacent to said depot or station house and abutting the right of way boundary of defendant's electric railway which schoolhouse was in close proximity to said tree on the defendant's right of way and in plain view of the children in attendance at said school; that the school was in daily session attended by children of immature age and discretion; that the magnolia tree bore flowers in the spring of the year that would be attractive to children of immature age, all of which should have been known to the defendant that plaintiff, a boy eight years of age, a pupil attending said school, being attracted and allured thereto, climbed the tree to gather the flowers therein, and in doing so came in contact with and was injured by defendant's electric wires carrying high and dangerous current of electricity and passing through and among the branches and foliage of the tree--taken with other appropriate allegations, state a cause of action for compensatory damages for injuries sustained as a proximate result of the negligence alleged. (Per Whitfield, J.)
One may not maintain dangerous and unprotected agency, naturally attractive to children. Under common-law principles, one may not, even upon his own premises, maintain a dangerous and unprotected agency, naturally attractive to, and from which injury may reasonably be expected to result to, very immature children, even though they be licensees or trespassers, where their presence on the premises and exposure to the danger may be reasonably anticipated, and the children are too young to realize and appreciate the danger. (Per Brown, J.)
George Earl Hoffman, of Pensacola, and Fred Cubberly, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Carter & Yonge, of Pensacola, and Peter O. Knight, of Tampa, for defendants in error.
In an amended declaration filed by the plaintiff in error, it is alleged that electric companies operated lines of electric railway, and that----
The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. Laundry
...such negligence. Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136; Union Pac. v. McDonald, 152 U. S. 262, 14 S. Ct. 619, 38 L. Ed. 434; Stark v. Holtzclaw (Fla.) 105 So. 330. The trial court in the charge to the jury correctly applied the rule of negligence, proximate cause, explaining an efficient in......
-
Campbell v. Model Steam Laundry
... ... Lane v. Atlantic ... Works, 111 Mass. 136; Union Pac. v. McDonald, ... 152 U.S. 262, 14 S.Ct. 619, 38 L.Ed. 434; Stark v ... Holtzclaw (Fla.) 105 So. 330 ... The ... trial court in the charge to the jury correctly applied the ... rule of ... ...
-
Florida Power and Light Co. v. Lively
...frequently occurred in the same manner, a result which has long been rejected by the courts of this state. See Stark v. Holtzclaw, 90 Fla. 207, 213, 105 So. 330, 332-33 (1925); K-Mart Enterprises of Florida v. Keller, 439 So.2d 283, 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 450 So.2d ......
-
Atlantic Peninsular Holding Co. v. Oenbrink
... ... The doctrine of 'attractive ... nuisance' has been considered, approved and adopted by ... the Supreme Court of Florida. See Stark v ... Holtzclaw, 90 Fla. 207, 105 So. 330, 41 A.L.R. 1323; ... May v. Simmons, 104 Fla. 707, 140 So. 780; ... Peters v. City of Tampa, 115 Fla ... ...