THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, A MUNICIPALITY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES M. JONES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against the City of Pensacola for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk, holding that municipalities have a duty to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing sidewalk defects and are liable for negligent failure to do so, regardless of whether they constructed the sidewalk or whether the declaration specifically alleges it was unsafe or unlit.
The declaration was not fatally defective. Under Florida law, municipalities have a duty to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing sidewalk defects after the unsafe condition is known or should be known to them, and are liable for negligent non-performance. The allegations in the declaration sufficiently established negligence without requiring explicit averments of ownership, construction, or lack of lighting.
“as a result of this power they are required to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing defects in streets and sidewalks after the unsafe condition thereof is known, or ought to have been known, to them, or to their officers having authority to act for them; and the municipality is liable in damages for negligent non-performance of this duty.”
Establishes the fundamental duty and liability of municipalities for sidewalk defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames M. Jones was injured because of a defective sidewalk in Pensacola. The declaration alleged that the city had possession and control of the stree…
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 Notice Of Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The defendant in error .recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Escambia county against the City of Pensacola for injuries received because of a defective sidewalk in the city. On writ of error it is urged that the declaration is fatally defective, because it does not allege that the city “owned or constructed the alleged defective sidewalk,” or that the “sidewalk was not reasonably safe,” or that “the defendant failed to have the defective and unsafe places in the sidewalk properly guarded or lighted so as to warn pedestrians of danger.”
Under the statutes of this State municipal corporations have the power to regulate and control the grading, construction and repairs of all streets, pavements and sidewalks in such municipalities respectively, and as a result of this power they are required to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing defects in streets and sidewalks after the unsafe condition thereof is known, or ought to have been known, to them, or to their officers having authority to act for them; and the municipality is liable in damages for negligent non-performance of this duty. Paragraph 1017 General Statutes of 1906; City of Daytona v. Edson, 46 Fla. 463, 34 South. Rep. 954.
The statute authorizes the city to require abutting owners “to construct uniform and substantial sidewalks around their several lots, and to keep the same in repair;” but this does not relieve the city of its duty “to exercise reasonable diligence in repairing defects in * ® * sidewalks,” or its liability for negligence in the discharge of this duty.
It is alleged that the city “had possession and control of” the “street and sidewalks thereon,” and “knowingly, wrongfully and negligently suffered the sidewalk” “to become and remain in a defective and unsafe condition for many weeks before” the injury complained of. The particular defects caused by broken or missing boards are stated, and it is alleged “that defendant knew or should have known that said defective sidewalk existed for many weeks before and at the date of the injury.” These allegations necessarily import that the “sidewalk was not reasonably safe.” If the city was negligent in not keeping the streets in repair, it was not necessary to allege additional negligence in not keeping the streets-lighted so as to warn pedestrians of danger caused by the negligence of the city.
No other questions are argued.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur, except Hocker, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City of Key W. v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1915)…nances relating to the construction of.sidewalks the city was relieved of its duty to exercise due diligence in keeping the same in good condition. We do not agree with this contention. This court held in the case of the City of Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, 50 South. Rep. 874, that under Section 1017 of the General Statutes requiring abutting owners to construct uniform and substantial sidewalks around their several lots, and to keep the same in repair did not relieve the city of its duty to exercise…
-
City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 5 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1942)…exercising reasonable diligence in the repair of defects in streets and sidewalks after the unsafe condition thereof is known to the officers having authority to act. See City of Daytona v. Edson, 46 Fla. 463, 34 So. 954; City of Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, 50 So. 874. The same rule was reiterated by this *Page 328 Court in City of Clearwater v. Gautier, 119 Fla. 476,161 So. 433, and City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, not yet reported. Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 is a photograph of the depression in the…
-
Ballard v. City of Tampa, 124 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1936)…a corporate function, for the abuse of which, by the negligence or wrongful conduct of its agents in the course of their regular employment, the city is liable. See 43 C. J. 974, 977; Key West v. Baldwin, 69 Fla. 136, 67 So. 808; Pensacola v. Jones, 58 Fla. 208, [*460] 50 So. 874; Jacksonville v. Drew, 19 Fla. 106; Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372; Bryan v. City of West Palm Beach, 75 Fla. 19, 77 So. 627; Astrom v. San Antonio, 94 Tex. 523, 62 S. W. 909; Denver v. Davis, 37 Colo. 370,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The City of Daytona v. Edson, 46 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1903)