Tampa Elec. Co. v. Lariscy
| Decision Date | 08 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4329,4329 |
| Citation | 166 So.2d 227 |
| Parties | TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. A. D. LARISCY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, Tampa, for appellant.
A. S. Johnston of Thompson, Lifsey, Johnston & Grotke, Tampa, and E. B. Rood, Tampa, for appellee.
WALDEN, JAMES H., Associate Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals a judgment for $25,000.00 entered upon a jury verdict in a wrongful death action arising out of the following circumstances.
On June 24, 1961, plaintiff-appellee's 14 1/2 year old son was found dead atop an electric pole maintained by appellant. His death resulted from electrocution.
The pole in question was located some 50 to 100 yards from a beach area on Lake Carroll frequented by area residents, including children. This beach area was apparently located on the site of a pavilion which burned some 4 or 5 months prior to the tragedy. The debris had been cleared by area residents and, as aforesaid, they continued use of the beach. The area immediately surrounding the pole was overgrown in high grass and was not, apparently, an integral part of the recreation area.
The pole extended 25 feet above the ground and was the last in a lateral line extending from a main line some two blocks distant. It was supported by a guy wire. The line terminating at the pole carried a primary voltage of 2400 volts. A transformer was located on the pole to reduce the primary voltage to secondary voltage. Certain of the wires above the transformer were not insulated.
The pavilion had been the only 'customer' on the line and had, prior to its destruction by fire, been supplied secondary voltage on a service line extending from the pole. Apparently when the pavilion was gone, this service wire had been cut, de-energized, rolled and left atop the pole. The testimony of two witnesses who had been at or near the pole a week before the fatal incident conflicted as to whether the service line was hanging down to the ground. It must, of course, be assumed that it was.
As aforesaid, plaintiff's 14 1/2 year old son was discovered dead atop the pole. There were no witnesses to his death, or testimony as to how or why he climbed the pole, but the theory presumably accepted by the jury was that he'd climbed the pole by using the dangling and de-energized service wire and had been electrocuted by contact with the uninsulated wires above the transformer.
Plaintiff-appellee sued upon theories of negligence and attractive nuisance. The former was abandoned upon agreement and the trial was had upon a theory of attractive nuisance. Defendant-appellant's preverdict motions to dismiss and for directed verdict and post-verdict motions were denied.
The basic question presented by this appeal is whether or not the power line pole under the mentioned circumstances constituted an attractive nuisance under the doctrine as understood and applied in Florida. We hold that it was not an attractive nuisance as a matter of law and reverse.
Florida is committed to the attractive nuisance doctrine. See Johnson v. Wood, 155 Fla. 753, 21 So.2d 353. The particulars of the doctrine are found in the Court's charge given here at the plaintiff's request:
'I charge you that the owner of any type of artificial condition maintained on premises is liable for bodily harm to young children who enter upon such premises if
'(a) the place where the condition is maintained is one upon which the owner knows or should know that children are likely to enter:
'(b) the condition which must be attractive, alluring or enticing to said children and is one which the owner knows or by exercise of reasonable care should know exists, and which they realize or should realize is involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children;
'(c) the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling in it;
'(d)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Whitmire Const. Co., 7300
...Groves, Inc. v. Dowell, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 188, 190; Idzi v. Hobbs, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 606, 607--608; Tampa Elec. Co. v. Lariscy, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 227, 228--229; Banks v. Mason, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 219, 220; Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc., Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 890, 892;......
-
Downey Memorial Church Interdenominational, Inc. v. Knowlton, 72--1147
...other cases, the volleyball net standard in question was no more inherently dangerous than was the power pole in Tampa Electric Company v. Lariscy, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 227; the couch in McDaniel v. Mendez, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 75; the pile of sand in Edwards v. Maule Industries, Inc.......
-
Idzi v. Hobbs, G-203
...(Fla.1955) 82 So.2d 890. 82 So.2d 890.2 Crutchfield, etc. et al. v. Adams, (Fla.App.1963) 152 So.2d 808.3 Tampa Electric Company, Inc., v. Lariscy, (Fla.App.1964) 166 So.2d 227.4 Tucker Brothers, Inc. et al. v. Menard, etc. et al., (Fla.1956) 90 so.2d 908.5 'The character of the danger, as ......
-
Cox v. Smith
...& Wood, Miami, for appellee. Before SWANN, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Tampa Electric Company v. Lariscy, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 227; Maxymow v. Lake Maggiore Baptist Church, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d ...