NELLIE PENTECOST, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in granting a directed verdict because the appellant's evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Plaintiff stumbled and was injured, allegedly due to a protruding pipe. The case was previously reversed and remanded for trial. At trial, the judge d…
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 Municipal Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. The factual situation which gave rise to this cause of action is set forth in a previous opinion, Pentecost v. Ansan Corporation, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 667, wherein this court reversed a summary judgment rendered in favor of the appellee City of Miami and another, and remanded the matter for trial. Upon it coming on for trial [in accordance with our previous opinion] at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony the trial judge directed a verdict for the appellee City and this appeal ensued.
Although the appellant assigned errors which may have been sufficient to challenge the failure of the trial judge to permit certain testimony into evidence, upon the preparation of the brief the only point preserved for review was the contention that the evidence properly before the trial judge, at the time of the direction of the verdict, was sufficient to make a prima facie case for the appellant. This is the only point for consideration by this court, as errors assigned and not argued are deemed abandoned. See: Carroll v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 624; Parsley Brothers Construction Co. v. Humphrey, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 257; Rule 3.7i, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.
Bearing in mind the factual situation as related in Schutzer v. City of Miami, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 492, at the time the cause came on for trial the appellant’s evidence was deficient in 2 particulars: first, she could not establish that the protruding pipe was in fact the object over which she stumbled and, second, she made *396no attempt to prove for what period of time the pipe in question may have been protruding, in order to put the municipality on constructive notice [no contention of actual notice was made] of the dangerous situation. Examining the record and finding it deficient in these 2 particulars, it appears that the trial judge did not err in granting the directed verdict and, therefore, the action is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nasrallah v. Corley, 180 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…e considered. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 402, 403. Appellant has in fact assigned as error the denial of his motion for new. trial but said assignment is not argued and is therefore abandoned. Pentecost v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 395. Appellants’ remaining point is directed to the assessment of costs and no substantial question is raised in argument under said point. Therefore this appeal be and the same is hereby quashed.…
-
Harshbarger v. Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 294 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…h she claimed was the cause of her fall. Thus, there was not a single shred of evidence to establish that the newspaper wire of the defendant Miami Herald was in fact the object over which she stumbled.1 Cf. Pentecost v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 395. Further, assuming arguendo that appellant did establish that it was the Herald’s newspaper wire in which she caught her foot, there was nothing in the evidence to demonstrate how the subject wire landed on the sidewalk; the duration, it remained th…
Authorities Cited
- Schutzer v. The City OF Miami, 105 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Parsley Bros. Constr. Co., Inc. v. Humphrey, 136 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Nettie Pearl Carroll v. HERTZ Corp., 132 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Pentecost v. Ansan Corp., 136 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)