BELLE LEAKE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
T. J. WATKINS, 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.
Belle Leake sued T. J. Watkins for eye injuries caused by falling brick and dust during building repairs. The trial court refused her requested instructions on non-delegable duties but gave alternative charges on control and agency, and the jury found for the defendant. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error.
The trial court did not commit reversible error. Although it refused the non-delegable duty instructions, the alternative charges on control and agency adequately stated the law and accorded with precedent. Under those charges, the jury could have found liability if the defendant reserved or exercised control over the manner and method of the repair work.
“If you believe that plaintiff has proven by a greater weight of the evidence that defendant reserved or exercised control over the manner and method of removing the brick and that the accident happened as charged in the declaration, by negligence in the removal, then plaintiff can recover.”
The alternative jury charge given by the trial court, which the supreme court found adequate and in accord with law, focusing on the defendant's control over the repair work as the basis for liability.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeake was employed in a building owned by Watkins. While Watkins's servants were repairing the building, brick, dirt, and dust fell near Leake, allege…
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 Delegation Of Duties cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error brought an action against Watkins to recover damages for alleged injuries to her right eye charged to have been caused by dust from “a quantity of brick, dirt and dust” which the defendant’s servants permitted to fall near her while, they were repairing the building in which she was employed. Trial was had on a plea of not guilty. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff took writ of error. A contract between the defendant and R. W. Logan for doing the repair work was admitted in evidence over the defendant’s objection. The contract had some relevancy to the question whether the defendant was liable for the acts of the persons who were doing the 'repairing and its admission in evidence was not error. The plaintiff requested charges stating in effect that if the defendant undertook to make improvements in his building, under an agreement with the tenant to make such improvements, the defendant owes a duty to such tenant and its employees in said building, to see that the improvements be done in such manner as not to injure.the employees by negligence and that the defendant under such circumstances could not relieve himself from responsibility €nd liability to the tenant and employees for negligence in doing the work, by delegating such work to an independent contractor under his employment. These requested instructions were refused. At the request of the plaintiff the court gave the following charge: 1
“If you find from the evidence in this cause that the defendant, T. J. Watkins, gave instructions to the contractor or his employees, as to the manner and method of removing the brick, over the door way in the front part of the building, this will constitute the contractor, or his employees, the agent, of the defendant, and render the defendant liable for any acts of negligence, committed by said contractor or his employees.”
The court also gave the following charge: •
“If you believe that plaintiff has proven by a greater weight of the evidence that defendant reserved or exercised control over the manner and method of removing the brick and that the accident happened as charged in the declaration, by negligence in the removal, then plaintiff can recover.”
In view of these latter charges given there was no harm if error in refusing the charges referred to above. The last quoted charge accords with the evidence and with the law as stated in Mumby v. Bowden, 25 Fla. 454, 6 South. Rep. 453.
Besides this, there is evidence on which the jury could have found that the injury complained of was the result of another and wholly different cause for which it is not alleged or shown that the defendant is liable. No reversible error appears.
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur. a
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wiley Jones, Jr., 377 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1979)…bt of the defendant’s guilt. The alleged error in the instructions does not weaken the effect of the admitted [*MCCXLIX] testimony and does not reach the legality of the trial itself. Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 So. 541 (1920); Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652 (1917). Precedent and common sense dictate that we recede from Robles. The primary goal of the judicial system is to seek the truth. Foolish, technical theories should not become barriers in reaching this goal.…
-
Fain v. Cartwright, 132 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1938)…le thereto, and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict, technical' errors, if any, in giving or requiring instructions to the jury will not cause a reversal of the judgment, no material errors appearing. Leake v. [*865] Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 So. 652. See McDaniel v. State, 103 Fla. 529, 137 So. 702; Graham v. Gill, 56 Fla. 316, 47 So. 917; McGee Lbr. Co. v. Tomlinson, 66 Fla. 536, 63 So. 919; Murden v. Miami Poultry, etc., Co., 113 Fla. 870, 152 So. 714. No reversible error has been made to ap…
-
Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1941)…ffect of the admitted testimony and which do not reach the legality of the trial itself will not be considered grounds for reversal •where the evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” See Leake v. Watkins, 73 Fla. 596, 74 Sou. 652; Barker, et al., v. State, 76 Fla. 164, 79 Sou. 436; Riggins v. State, 78 Fla. 459, 83 Sou. 267; Dixon v. State, 79 Fla. 586, 84 Sou. 541; Section 2812 R. G. S., 4499 C. G. L. Also see Section 309 of Florida Criminal Pro'cedure Act, which is as foll…
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
- Mumby v. Bowden & Rosenthal, 25 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1889)