CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
EDITH ALTMAN, 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.
City of Miami appeals a jury verdict for plaintiff Edith Altman in a negligent sidewalk maintenance case. The court affirmed the jury's $8,000 verdict, finding sufficient evidence that the City's failure to maintain the sidewalk in safe condition proximately caused plaintiff's injuries despite her own negligence claim.
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, and the judgment was affirmed. The evidence established that the sidewalk was not reasonably safe and that the City's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Altman's injuries.
“The stone loosened. See, I was going to the —going across to the P & O. It was the sidewalk coming this way (indicating) and we go to an angle to the P & O. The stone loosened and I fell forward.”
Plaintiff's testimony describing the mechanism of her fall and establishing the sidewalk defect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdith Altman fell on a City of Miami sidewalk while traversing it for approximately the tenth time per week over nine months. At the time of her fall,…
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the defendant, and the appellee was the plaintiff below.
Edith Altman, the plaintiff, filed her complaint alleging that the defendant, the City of Miami, negligently allowed a sidewalk within the city limits to fall into a state of disrepair and that the sidewalk was not reasonably safe for pedestrian travel. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligent maintenance of said sidewalk caused her to fall and sustain injuries. The defendant filed its answer denying plaintiff’s allegations in negligence and affirmatively pleaded that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by her own contributory negligence.
The case was tried before a jury and a verdict of $8,000 was returned for the plaintiff.
Among the appellant’s assignments of error was the alleged failure of the court to grant defendant’s motion for a directed verdict because the plaintiff failed to prove that the sidewalk was not reasonably safe for pedestrian travel and because the evidence affirmatively showed that the proxi*417mate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff was her own contributory negligence.
The plaintiff testified that she traversed the sidewalk approximately ten times a week for nine months and that she never saw the condition of the sidewalk until after she fell. Turning to Pages 139 to 141 of the transcript, we find that the plaintiff among other things has testified:
“Q. (Mr. Maloy) Just describe the condition of the surface of the sidewalk. A. It was cracked.
“Q. Were there any portions of the sidewalk missing? A. Not to my knowledge.
“Q. Do you recall the accident? A. Yes.
“Q. You say you do. Do you recall the place where you fell? A. Yes.
“Q. Would you describe how that surface of that area where you fell appeared to you? A. It appeared like it did any other morning. I mean there wasn’t anything—
“Q. How was that? A. It looked a little cracked, and that’s all. It didn’t look any different than any other morning.
Q. Would you describe to the jury just what happened immediately prior to the accident? A. The stone loosened. See, I was going to the —going across to the P & O. It was the sidewalk coming this way (indicating) and we go to an angle to the P & O. The stone loosened and I fell forward. The curb was jagged and I noticed that jag after I fell. That’s something that I think should be known, because I laid there for about five minutes. I could move my legs but I couldn’t move my hands. I couldn’t get up, in other words, and afterwards I learned that I had broken my shoulder and my hand. But that was — I couldn’t move. That was all.”
And on Page 167 of the transcript on cross examination, she testified as follows:
“Q.- Now, were you watching where you were walking on that morning that you fell? A. I walked in my usual manner. The cement or the stone of the pavement loosened and over I went— ”
We have considered all the assignments of error and reviewed the record and find that there was enough evidence for the cause to have gone to the jury and to support the jury’s verdict and have reached the conclusion that the Judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. See City of Miami v. Lawson, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 600; Andrews v. Goetz, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 653; Schutzer v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 492; City of Miami v. Wolff, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 270.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kopf v. City OF Miami Beach, 653 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 577 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Spaulding v. City of Melbourne, 473 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Beattie v. City of Coral Gables, 358 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); City of Miami v. Altman, 128 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Hence, the summary judgment entered for the city below1 is reversed and the cause remanded for trial. Reversed and remanded. GERSTEN, J., concurs. . The trial judge apparently determined that the condition of the broken si…
-
Artesiano v. City OF Coral Gables, 364 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…o. 2d 636 (Fla.1953); Schutzer v. City of Miami, 105 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); See also Beattie v. City of Coral Gables, 358 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bush v. City of Miami, 175 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); City of Miami v. Altman, 128 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).…
Authorities Cited
- Schutzer v. The City OF Miami, 105 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Andrews v. Goetz, 104 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- City OF Miami v. Corinne Lawson, 104 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Efurd v. Blaise Jacques and Gabrielle Jacques, 112 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)