MERCEDES ALVAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Mercedes Alvarez, a paying passenger on a Metropolitan Dade County bus, was attacked by an unknown assailant at a location where prior assaults had occurred. She sued the County for breach of contract and negligence as a common carrier. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the County, holding that a common carrier is not liable for attacks by unknown assailants unless the carrier had prior notice that the specific assailant had dangerous propensities.
A common carrier is only liable for an assault by one patron on another if the carrier had prior notice that the particular assailant had dangerous propensities. The County was not liable for the assault because there was no evidence that the County knew the assailant had dangerous propensities.
[1] A common carrier is liable for the assault of one patron on another patron only if the carrier knew that the particular assailant had dangerous propensities.
[2] A common carrier is not liable for an assault by a patron on another patron if there was no prior notice to the carrier that the assailant had dangerous propensities.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The County would only be liable for the assault of one patron on another patron if the defendant knew that the particular assailant had dangerous propensities.”
Establishes the core legal standard for common carrier liability in assault cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvarez was a paying passenger on a County bus when she was attacked by an unknown assailant at a location where other passengers had previously been …
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 Breach Of Contract Of Carriage cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Mercedes Alvarez, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from a “final judgment on pleadings”, entered in favor of Metropolitan Dade County in an action for damages.
Alvarez was a paying passenger on a County bus when she was attacked by an unknown assailant.
The attack occurred at a location where other passengers had previously been assaulted. Alvarez brought suit against the County, seeking damages on the theories that the County had breached its contract of carriage and had breached, negligently, the duty owed by a common carrier to its passengers.
We affirm. The County would only be liable for the assault of one patron on another patron if the defendant knew that the particular assailant had dangerous propensities. Here, there was no previous notice to the County that the assailant had dangerous propensities. This rule of law was stated in Hall v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, 84 Fla. 9, 93 So. 151 (1921). In that case, a female passenger on a train was assaulted in her sleeping compartment. She rang the bell for help and screamed, but it took several minutes for the porter to finally come. The assailant escaped and, after the porter left, the assailant returned and began assaulting the plaintiff again. Again she rang the bell and screamed, but it was several minutes before the porter came. The Supreme Court held that the railroad was not liable for the first attack but, thereafter, was on notice of the person with dangerous propensities and was liable for the second attack. This is still the law in Florida. See and compare the following authorities: Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, 123 So. 2d 472 (Fla.3d DCA 1960); Reynolds v. Deep South Sports, Inc., 211 So. 2d 37 (Fla.2d DCA 1968); Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 240 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).2
Therefore, the final judgment on the pleadings be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. As far as the pleadings revealed, the unknown assailant could have entered the bus at any stop along the route, possibly one where there had never been a previous assault. To hold the County liable under the allegations of these pleadings would make the County an insurer, with absolute liability to all passengers.
. In this connection, also see the following: Langer v. City of New York, 9 Misc.2d 1002, 171 N.Y.S.2d 390 (1958); City of Dallas v. Jackson, 450 S.W. 2d 62, S.Ct.Tx (1970); Letsos v. Chicago Transit Authority, A1 Ill.2d 437, 265 N.E. 2d 650 (1970); Aime v. Hebert, 282 So. 2d 566 (La.App.1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cora Nell Arline v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 429 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…358 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), that a final summary judgment would have been affirmed. Hilgenhurst v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper, Inc., 400 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981); Alvarez v. Metropolitan Dade County, 378 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath, 123 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 480 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Fla.1979). Appeal dismissed.…
-
DeLUCIA v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 451 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…eve that an act of violence by the fellow passenger in one form or another would follow, and that the bus driver did not act to prevent such violence. Summary judgment for the County was thus improperly entered. Alvarez v. Metropolitan Dade County, 378 So. 2d 1317 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), upon which the County relies, lends no support [*1011] to the County’s position. Indeed, the rule of law announced in Alvarez that “[t]he County would only be liable for the assault of one patron on another patron if the defendant…
-
Williams v. Wainwright, 650 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1981)…appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, appellant argued that the imposition of the fifteen year sentences was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The sentence was affirmed in Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 1317 (Fla.3d D.C.A. 1980). Appellant sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The writ was denied on July 28, 1980, Williams v. Wainwright, 493 F.Supp. 153 (S.D.Fla.1980). Two Florida statutes are german…
Authorities Cited
- Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Mrs. Florence M. Hall and John L. Hall v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 84 Fla. 9 (Fla. 1921)
- Reynolds v. Deep S. Sports, Inc., 211 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath, 123 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Graham v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 240 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)