MARION HAMMONTREE, A WIDOW, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 reversed a lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer, holding that a plaintiff's declaration for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk sufficiently stated a cause of action and provided adequate notice to the city.
No, a demurrer should not be sustained in such a case. The declaration, if it does not wholly fail to state a cause of action and alleges substantial compliance with the statutory notice requirements, should be allowed to proceed.
“Where a declaration against a municipal corporation, for injuries caus'ed by an alleged defect in the defendant’s sidewalk, does not wholly fail to state a cause of action for negligence, and alleges the giving of a written notice of the accident to the city substantially in the form required by it, so as to accomplish the purpose and carry out the intent of the statute that the city officials shall be apprised by plaintiff of the time and place of the accident, with such reasonable specifications, and names of witnesses, if known at the time of giving notice, as will enable the city officials to investigate the matter, a demurrer thereto should not be sustained.”
This quote establishes the standard for when a demurrer should not be sustained in cases involving municipal liability for sidewalk defects and statutory notice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Marion Hammontree, a widow, sued the City of Tampa for injuries sustained due to a defective sidewalk. Her amended declaration alleged …
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 Statutory Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the judgment of the Circuit Court sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s amended declaration and entering final judgment in favor of the City of Tampa thereon, must be reversed on the authority of Kibbe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 793, 138 Sou. Rep. 371, and Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 Sou. Rep. 885, 138 Sou. Rep. 486.
Where a declaration against a municipal corporation, for injuries caus'ed by an alleged defect in the defendant’s sidewalk, does not wholly fail to state a cause of action for negligence, and alleges the giving of a written notice of the accident to the city substantially in the form required by it, so as to accomplish the purpose and carry out the intent of the statute that the city officials shall be apprised by plaintiff of the time and place of the accident, with such reasonable specifications, and names of witnesses, if known at the time of giving notice, as will enable the city officials to investigate the matter, a demurrer thereto should not be sustained. Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Carlton v. Fla. East Coast Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 596, 116 Sou. Rep. 870. This Court has adopted the substantial compliance rule as to the statutory notice required in such cases. See Kibbe v. City of Miami, supra; McQuillian on Municipal Corporations, Suppl. Vol. 8, page 8314.
Judgment reversed wih directions to overrule demurrer to amended declaration and have further proceedings according to law.
Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finneran v. City OF Lake Worth, 152 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…, opposed by the import of better reasoned Florida decisions. See and compare Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 1931, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, 138 So. 486; Kibbe v. City of Miami, 1931, 103 Fla. 793, 138 So. 371; Hammontree v. City of Tampa, 1933, 108 Fla. 343, 146 So. 556; Magee v.. [*503] City of Jacksonville, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 589, 62 A.L.R.2d 334; Monchek v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 20; Tillman v. City of Pompano Beach, Fla. 1958, 100 So. 2d 53, 65 A.L.R.2d 1273. We think these…
-
Princess D. Brooks v. City OF Miami, 161 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…in Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, 138 So. 486, that technical defects in a notice of claim which was timely filed were deemed to be waived by the City. And to the same effect, it was held in Hammontree v. City of Tampa, 108 Fla. 343, 146 So. 556, that it is sufficient if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the notice statute. In Kibbe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 793, 138 So. 371, a notice of claim was filed with the City Manager who in turn sent a copy of th…
-
Carpenter v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 167 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…ity of Miami, supra, Judge Pearson, speaking for the Third District Court of Appeal, discussed notice statute requirements involved in Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 1931, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, 138 So. 486; Hammontree v. City of Tampa, 1933, 108 Fla. 343, 146 So. 556; Kibbe v. City of Miami, 1931, 103 Fla. 793, 138 So. 371; Town of Mount Dora v. Green, 1934, 117 Fla. 385, 158 So. 131, and Tillman v. City of Pompano Beach, supra, before reaching the following conclusion: “In the instant case the pla…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1931)
- Montverde Dev. Corp. v. Howey-in-the-Hills, 102 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)
- Kibbe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1931)
- Carlton v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 95 Fla. 596 (Fla. 1928)