CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH MULHOLLAND AND JOSEPH MULHOLLAND, 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.
Elizabeth Mulholland was injured when she fell on a sidewalk in Miami and recovered a judgment against the City. The City appealed, arguing it was not responsible because the sidewalk was within a state road right-of-way, but the court affirmed, holding that the City's construction and maintenance of the sidewalk imposed liability despite the state road location.
The City of Miami was responsible for the condition of the sidewalk and could not escape liability based on the state's maintenance of the underlying road. State control of a state road does not extend to or relieve the city of responsibility for bordering sidewalks that the city itself built and maintained.
“On those facts, state maintenance and control of such a state road did not extend to control of the bordering sidewalk, or operate to relieve the city from its duty and responsibility relating to sidewalks.”
Establishes the core holding that the City remained liable for the sidewalk despite the state road location.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Mulholland fell on a sidewalk bordering Biscayne Boulevard in Miami. The sidewalk and an adjacent parkway area were built and maintained by …
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 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee Elizabeth Mulholland was injured when she fell on a sidewalk bordering Biscayne Boulevard in the City of Miami. She and her husband sued the city and recovered a verdict and judgment. The city has appealed. We affirm the judgment.
The evidence adduced was sufficient to support a conclusion by the jury that the sidewalk was defective and that the city was negligent in the maintenance thereof. The city argues it was not responsible for the condition of the sidewalk because it was within a state road right of way. Cf. Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, Fla. 1953, 64 So.2d 924. It was disclosed, however, that the sidewalk was built and maintained by the city, as also was a parkway area between the sidewalk and the part of the right of way used for vehicular traffic. On those facts, state maintenance and control of such a state road did not extend to control of the bordering sidewalk, or operate to relieve the *574city from its duty and responsibility relating to sidewalks. City of Miami v. Western Shipping & Trading Company, 5 Cir. 1956, 232 F.2d 847; Moleske v. MacDonald, 109 Conn. 336, 146 A. 820, 822; 16 Fla.Jur., Highways § 110. Moreover, in 1960 when the accident occurred, the statutory definitions of “Road” and “State roads” (§ 334.-03(13) and (19), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) did not include “sidewalks.” It is significant that by chapter 63-27 those statutory definitions were amended in 1963 for the purpose of including sidewalks.1
Other questions presented have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bush v. City OF Miami, 175 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…within the defendant’s municipal limits. The case is therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. . Singleton v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 47. . City of Miami v. Mulholland, Fla.App. 1964, 158 So. 2d 573.…
Authorities Cited
- Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, 64 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1953)
- The City OF Miami v. W. Shipping & Trading Co., 232 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1956)