SUSAN K. MATHEWS AND CARL L. MATHEWS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF TAMPA, 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.
Appellants Susan and Carl Mathews appealed a dismissal of their complaint against the City of Tampa for injuries allegedly caused by the city's failure to reinstall a stop sign. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that even assuming compliance with notice requirements, the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the city could not be held liable under the identical facts and accident previously decided in City of Tampa v. Davis.
The court affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the appellants failed to state a cause of action against the city. Even assuming compliance with all notice requirements, the complaint was deficient because the city could not be held liable under the identical facts and accident previously decided in City of Tampa v. Davis.
“the rule is well established that a correct decision can be supported on grounds other than those assigned by the lower court”
Establishes the appellate court's authority to affirm on an alternative basis without reaching the notice issue raised by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan K. Mathews was injured in an accident allegedly caused by the City of Tampa's failure to reinstall a stop sign. The appellants filed a second am…
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 Notice Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants-plaintiffs appeal a final judgment entered below which dismissed the appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice.
*212The trial judge based the dismissal upon the ground that the appellants failed “to allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant received notice of the accident as required by Section 95.241, Florida Statutes, 1967, F.S.A., and Section 409 of the Compiled Charter of the City of Tampa.” The trial court further held that the appellants failed “to allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant has waived or is estopped to rely upon the notice provision as set forth in said Section 95.241, Florida Statutes, 1967 [F.S.A.].” The trial court relied on the case of Rabinowitz v. Town of Bay Harbor Island, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 9.
The appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appellants’ second amended complaint on two grounds, one being the failure to give notice as required by law; the other being that the appellants failed to allege sufficient facts to create any causal relationship between the appellant Susan K. Mathews’ alleged injuries and the alleged failure of the appellee to re-install a stop sign.
Even assuming the appellants complied with all provisions of the laws pertaining to notice to the appellee, the final judgment must be affirmed on the other ground set forth in appellee’s motion to dismiss. The rule is well established that a correct decision can be supported on grounds other than those assigned by the lower court. Matthews v. Matthews, Fla. App.1965, 177 So.2d 497; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 297.
In the case of City of Tampa v. Davis, 226 So.2d 450, filed September 17, 1969 in this court and not yet reported, this court held that the city could not be held liable to Davis under the identical facts alleged in appellants’ complaint and, in fact, involving the identical accident as is the basis of the appellants’ claim in the case sub judice.
In view of our holding in City of Tampa v. Davis, supra, and assuming that appellants complied with all laws pertaining to notice to the appellee, we hold that the appellants’ second amended complaint does not state a cause of action against the ap-pellee and, therefore, we
Affirm.
LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schmauss v. Snoll, 245 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…mployee is in privity, or with whom he is dealing or is otherwise in contact in a direct transaction or confrontation. * * * ” (Italics deleted) City of Tampa v. Davis, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 450, 454, and Mathews v. City of Tampa, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So. 2d 211. Cf. Shealor v. Rand, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 765. Compare the language used in Mod-lin, supra, 201 So. 2d at p. 76: “It is evident that * * * the respondent city’s inspector would not have been personally liable to Mrs. Modlin for damages resulti…
-
Cheney v. Dade Cnty., 353 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ve damages.” [Emphasis added] . Gordon v. City of West Palm Beach, 321 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Clifton v. City of Ft. Pierce, 319 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Schmauss v. Snoll, 245 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Mathews v. City of Tampa, 227 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); City of Tampa v. Davis, 226 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). . Romish v. Albo, 291 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Turner v. Trade-Mor, Inc., 252 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Petterson v. Concrete Construction, Inc., 202 So. 2d 1…1 / 2
-
Mitchem v. State of Fla. ex rel Frank Schaub, 250 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1971)…2 Fla. 581, 195 So. 160 (1940); St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27, Fla., Opinion filed June 9, 1971. See also In re Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1970); Jones v. Nisson, 237 So. 2d 339 (1st D.C.A. Fla.1970); Mathews v. City of Tampa, 227 So. 2d 211 (2nd D.C.A. Fla.1969); Beyes v. Zbin, 217 So. 2d 150 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1969).…
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
- The City OF Tampa v. Davis, 226 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Rabinowitz v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands, 178 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1965)
- Matthews v. Olive M. Matthews & Soft Water Laundry, Inc., 177 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)