MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID LINGLER, 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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict against Miami Shores Village, finding sufficient evidence that the Village had notice of a dangerous condition caused by a defective parking bumper that injured a pedestrian.
Yes, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that the Village had notice of the dangerous condition posed by the defective parking bumper.
“There is no-evidence that the dangerous condition caused by the defective bumper protruded over the sidewalk for a sufficient length of time to put the City on notice of such fact.”
Acknowledges the appellant's argument regarding lack of notice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured when he tripped over exposed reinforcing rods of a concrete parking bumper placed by the Village adjacent to a sidewalk. The…
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 Foreseeability Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Miami Shores Village, appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The record reveals that the plaintiff-appellee was injured when he tripped and fell over exposed reinforcing rods of a concrete parking bumper. These rods extended out over the sidewalk. There is evidence, which if believed by the jury, is sufficient to establish that the defective concrete parking bumper was one placed by the City adjacent to and on the same level with the sidewalk. There is no-evidence that the dangerous condition caused by the defective bumper protruded over the sidewalk for a sufficient length of *717time to put the City on notice of such fact. Upon the other hand, there is evidence that the broken bumper was so discolored and weathered as to establish that it had existed in a broken and therefore dangerous condition for a long period of time. This evidence is a sufficient basis for the jury’s finding that the bumper had existed in a dangerous condition over a sufficient period of time to put the defendant-City on notice of the danger involved. See City of Jacksonville v. Foster, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 548. By permitting such a dangerous condition to exist, the City created an unreasonable risk that the bumper would be moved and cause injury to a passer-by because the risk reasonably to be foreseen included the possibility that the bumper, left readily accessible to automobiles being parked, would be moved about and become a hazard to persons on the adjoining sidewalk. Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 26 Cal.2d 213, 157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R. 872 (1945). See Peairs v. Florida Publishing Co., Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 561.
Appellant’s main argument upon this appeal is that there was not sufficient proof of notice to the City for it to be liable to the plaintiff. While this court may not always agree with the conclusion of the jury from the evidentiary facts presented, we are bound to affirm where there is a reasonable finding from sufficient evidence.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bates v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., 182 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…through any act of an outsider. Plaintiff argues that the color of the peel may be used to show that the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that the defendants should have known of it and relies on Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, 157 So. 2d 716 (D.C.A.Fla.1963). In that case a pedestrian was injured by a metal rod protruding from a concrete bumper located adjacent to the street. The metal showed signs of rust and other marks of discoloration indicating that the condition, had existed for q…
-
Hershey v. The Keyes Co., 209 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…he would sell the property if a cash price satisfactory to the seller could be obtained. I think that the decision of the majority is contra to the holdings that appellate courts will not retry cases. Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 716; Holland Paving Co. v. Dann, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So. 2d 849. I would therefore affirm the judgment. . The jury was also instructed immediately after the instruction above quoted, as follows: “If you find from the evidence in this case that the def…
-
Booker v. Udelio Lima and Mary Lima, 182 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…72 So. 2d 17. And, if there is any evidence to support same, it should be affirmed. See: Kowalczyk v. Brudder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 532; Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 332; Miami Shores Village v. Lingler, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 716. We have examined the record in light of these principles and find sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury’s finding and, therefore, we affirm the final judgment here under review. At the time of oral argument, counsel for the appellant…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peairs v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 132 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- City of Jacksonville v. Foster, 41 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1949)