RICHARD BERTRAM ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Marine interests challenged a circuit court's dismissal of their complaint seeking to block construction of a bridge with 55-foot clearance across Biscayne Bay's inter-coastal waterway, arguing it would obstruct navigation. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege special damages distinct from those affecting the general public.
The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action because they did not allege special damages different from those inflicted on the public at large. A private action cannot be maintained by one who has no interest in the waterway beyond that enjoyed by the public in common.
“the injury must cause him special damages different from that inflicted on the public at large”
Establishes the required condition for a private action to challenge an alleged obstruction to navigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs, representing marine interests, filed a complaint in circuit court seeking declaratory relief, an injunction, and other remedies to prevent…
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 Special Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs, constituting a large number of marine interests, seek review of a decree dismissing their complaint filed in the circuit court. Said complaint prayed for a declaratory decree, injunction and other relief for the purpose of preventing the construction of a fifty-five-foot vertical clearance fixed span bridge across the inter-coastal waterway in Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida. The complaint alleged that such bridge would constitute an obstruction to navigation. The sole issue raised on appeal is directed to the error of the chancellor in dismissing the complaint.
The right of an individual to use a waterway for the purpose of navigation comes to him as one of the public, and he has no more rights than belong to the public in the use of a public waterway unless he is a riparian owner on the waterway, then his rights may depend on different principles. See Ferry Pass I. & S. Ass’n v. White River I. & S. Association, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 463, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 345; Thiesen v. Gulf F. & A. Ry. Co., 75 Fla. 28, 78 So. 491, L.R.A.1918E, 718; Carmazi v. Board of County Com’rs of Dade County, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 318; Miller v. Mayor of New York, 109 U.S. 385, 3 S.Ct. 228, 27 L.Ed. 971; 1 Farnham, Waters and Water Rights, § 29.
Where an objection is made, as in this case, by an individual to an alleged obstruction to navigation by either the state or an individual, there are many conditions which must be met before his complaint will be heard. Among these is that “the injury must cause him special damages different from that inflicted on the public at large.” 1 Farnham, Waters and Water Rights, § 95. A private action cannot be maintained by one who has no interest in the waterway beyond that enjoyed by the public in common to use it as a highway. See Marine Air Ways v. State, 201 Misc. 349, 104 N.Y.S.2d 964, and authorities cited therein.
Upon careful consideration of the complaint, we conclude that the appellants have failed to state a cause of action and that the chancellor was eminently correct in dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bair v. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 144 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1962)…6 Miami L.Q. 554. . Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass’n., 59 Fla. 447, 52 So. 802; Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 74 Fla. 336, 76 So. 894; Page v. Niagra Chemical Division, Fla. 1953, 68 So. 2d 382; Bertram v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 674; Henry L. Doherty & Co., Inc. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50, 200 So. 238. . See F.S. Sec. 64.11 et seq., See. 823.05, and Sec. 387.08, F.S.A.…
-
Maule Indus., Inc. v. Killian, 127 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ass Inspectors’ & Shippers’ Ass’n v. White’s River I. & S. Ass’n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 345. See also, Carmazi v. Board of County Com’rs of Dade County, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 318; Bertram v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 674; Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District v. Griffith, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So. 2d 423. HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Thiesen v. Gulf, 75 Fla. 28 (Fla. 1917)
- The Ferry Pass Inspectors' & Shippers' Ass'n v. The Whites River Inspectors' & Shippers' Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399 (Fla. 1909)
- Miller v. Mayor OF NEW York and Others, 109 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1883)
- August M. Carmazi and Lester M. Muhn v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty., 108 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)