Steinhardt v. Town of North Bay Village, 60-516
Decision Date | 14 September 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 60-516,60-516 |
Parties | Milton STEINHARDT and Esther Steinhardt, his wife, Appellants, v. TOWN OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, a municipal corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Snyder & Young and Malcolm H. Fromberg, North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Feibelman, Friedman, Hyman & Durant, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.
The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment entered upon defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The facts as admitted upon the motion were that the plaintiffs were the owners of certain improved real property within the limits of the defendant city, and a fire threatened to destroy plaintiffs' building; that defendant municipal corporation, pursuant to a call and its regulations, dispatched its agents who formed a portion of its fire department to the plaintiffs' property; and that because of the negligence of its agents, the fire destroyed plaintiffs' building. We affirm.
The acts of alleged negligence may be best described by quoting from the complaint itself:
The trial judge found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because a municipality is not liable for a tort arising out of the insufficient manner in which its fire department proceeds in fighting a fire. 1 Counsel are agreed that the trial judge considered Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 130, 60 A.L.R.2d 1193, and determined that the holding therein does not extend the area of possible municipal liability to include a city's negligent failure to properly protect property from loss by fire.
The gravamen of the complaint is the failure of the city to properly carry out a function it has undertaken and for the performance of which it has presumably collected taxes from the plaintiffs. It is not alleged that the city has failed to provide a fire department; rather, it is urged that it provided an ineffective one insofar as the needs of the plaintiffs were to be met. It is argued that this is another way of saying that the plaintiffs have suffered a direct personal injury proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal employee while acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore the facts come within the statement of the law contained in the Hargrove case at page 133, paragraph .
In a consideration of the problem, we are not greatly aided by the many cases from other jurisdictions, which almost uniformly hold that a city is not liable. The greatest number of the cases cited base the holding upon the conclusion that the maintenance and operation of a municipal fire department are a governmental function, and in the exercise of such function, the municipality is immune to liability. The distinction between proprietary and governmental functions is no longer valid as a method of allocation municipal liability in this state. It is sometimes said that failure to provide adequate fire protection involves the denial of a benefit owing to the community as a whole, but that it does not constitute a wrong or injury to a member thereof so as to give rise to a right of individual redress. Notwithstanding such reasoning, our Supreme Court in Mugge v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 52 Fla. 371, 42 So. 81, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 1171, held that where a private water company fails to furnish an adequate water supply pursuant to its contract with the city, and an individual suffers fire damage because of this failure, the individual has a right of action against the company even though the benefit of the contract runs to the community as a whole.
If we look for reasons rather than reasoning in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Green Cove Springs v. Donaldson
...on claims arising from the failure of a city to provide adequate fire-fighting personnel and equipment, Steinhardt v. Town of North Bay Village, 3rd D.C.A.Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 764, cert. discharged, 141 So.2d 737; refusal of a city to grant a building permit, Akin v. City of Miami, Fla.1953,......
-
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County
...was demonstrated. The majority, also applying Hargrove, drew the opposite conclusion and cited for analogy Steinhardt v. Town of North Bay Village, 132 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), which dealt with the negligent provision of fire It is important to note that while this Court discharged the......
-
Modlin v. Washington Ave. Food Center, Inc.
...37 A.L.R.2d 691, a city was held not liable for its employee's unlawful refusal to grant a building permit. In Steinhardt v. Town of North Bay Village, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 764, a city was held not liable to a property owner whose residence burned because the city's fireman failed to kee......
-
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. B.J.M.
...have also recognized the broad discretion afforded to government agencies that allocate public services. In Steinhardt v. Town of North Bay Village, 132 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. discharged, 141 So.2d 737 (Fla.1962), plaintiffs sued the city for failing to provide adequate fire pr......