B. F. PATY, ET AL.,
v.
TOWN OF PALM BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A property owner appeals the dismissal of his trespass action against the Town of Palm Beach, which built a groin that altered ocean currents and caused erosion of his coastal land. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a municipality acting within its statutory authority to protect public shores is not liable for incidental damage to private property resulting from lawful exercises of legal rights.
A municipality is not liable for damages resulting from a lawful act done in a lawful manner within the scope of its statutory authority, even if such act causes incidental damage to private property. The court held that damage without legal wrong (damnum absque injuria) is not actionable.
“Any injury or damage which is occasioned by the doing of a lawful act or the exercise of a legal right, or by doing a thing, authorized by law, in the authorized way, is damnum absque injuria.”
Establishes the core legal principle that damage without legal wrong resulting from lawful conduct is not actionable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Palm Beach, acting under statutory authorization, constructed a groin extending from the shore into the Atlantic Ocean. The groin altered …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Damnum Absque Injuria cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court sustained a demurrer to the appellant’s declaration and, appellant not electing to further amend, the Court entered a final judgment against the appellant-plaintiff and he appeals and assigns as error the sustaining of defendant’s demurrer.
The substance of the question presented as flowing from appellant’s assignments of error is:
“Is a trespass or wrong made to appear when a municipal corporation builds a groin from the shore of the Atlantic Ocean out into the waters of the ocean, and the groin changes the natural action and the currents of the ocean so as to cause them to whip around to the south of the groin and to beat against and to excessively wash away plaintiff’s land?”
The question states the substance of plaintiff’s declaration. The rights of private owners as well as the rights of the public depend somewhat on-.the character of the water on which the land borders and the nature of the proprietary interest in the land both below and above the surface of the water. The waters of the sea are usually considered a common enemy. (See note in 6 L.R.A.N.S. 162.)
For other relative cases not deemed applicable here see Kalenkamp et al. v. Union Realty Co. 53 Pac. (2nd) 387, and 93 Pac. (2nd) 1035; Revell v. People, 177 Ill. 468, 52 N.E. 1052, 69 Am. St. Rep. 257.
The City of Palm Beach by Section 4, of Chapter 21469, Acts 1941, has been authorized to protect its Ocean Boulevard and the lands lying westerly thereof against danger of destruction because of action of the sea by the construction of seawalls, bulkheads and groins.
*577“Any injury or damage which is occasioned by the doing of a lawful act or the exercise of a legal right, or by doing a thing, authorized by law, in the authorized way, is damnum absque injuria. Damage resulting from such an act, to be actionable, must be coupled with some negligence or misconduct, or the act must have been done at a time, or in a manner, or under circumstances, which' render the actor chargeable with want of proper regard for the rights of others. In doing a lawful thing in a lawful way no legal right is invaded, although the act may result in damage to another.
“. . . Nor can an action be maintained for damages resulting to individuals from acts done by persons in the execution of a public trust and for the public benefit, acting with due skill and caution and within the scope of the authority.
“. . . Nevertheless, the mode of exercising a legal right, where there is a choice of means, may of itself give a cause of action, and an act which, in many cases, is in itself lawful, becomes unlawful when by it damage has accrued to the property of another, especially if it is such an act as is calculated, in the ordinary course of events, to damage another if done intentionally and without just cause or excuse.” 1 Am. Jur. Sec. 33, pages 425, 426.
It appears that the appellee is sued for doing of an authorized act and the exercise of a lawful right and that the damages were without wrong.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C.J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dudley v. Orange Cnty., 137 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…cess of law, and does not effect a taking of property without compensation in the constitutional sense.” These general principles have been recognized to some degree by the courts of this [*863] state, see Paty v. Town of West Palm Beach, Fla.1947, 29 So. 2d 363; and Pasternack v. Bennett, 1939, 138 Fla. 663, 190 So. 56. On the question of whether or not the injunction should have been issued, it must be recognized that injunctions should be issued cautiously; and mandatory injunctions are looked upon with…
-
Division of Administration v. Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…nner in which the construction is performed. Weir v. Palm Beach County, 85 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1956). Where the construction is lawful and performed without negligence or misconduct, resulting injury is damnum absque injuria. Paty v. Town of Palm Beach, 158 Fla. 575, 29 So. 2d 363 (1947). If the damages are occasioned by negligence or misconduct in performing the construction, a separate tort action or a legislative claims bill may be the appropriate avenue for redress. Division of Administration, State Departm…
-
Shamhart v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., 159 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1947)…s not the proximate result of any wrongful act of the Cafeteria. The Cafeteria’s acts are the remote and not the proximate cause — -Morrison Cafeteria’s act being only to make its food wanted. As stated in the opinion of Paty v. Town of Palm Beach, 158 Fla. 575, 29 So. (2nd) 364: .“It appears that the appellee is sued for doing of an authorized act and the exercise of a lawful right and that the damages were without wrong.” BUFORD, J., concurs.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence