THE E. B. ELLIOTT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, A CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF RAYMOND W. GATES,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error, affirming the trial court's judgment.
An employee of E.B. Elliott Company was injured and the company's insurer sued the City of Miami for alleged negligence in inspecting a fire extinguis…
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 Improper Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
E. B. Elliott Company is an outdoor advertising company subject to the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Raymond W. Gates is a valued employee of E. B. Elliott Company and was seriously injured in the course of his employment. E. B. Elliott Company carried liability insurance for the benefit of Gates with Bituminous Casualty Company.
This action was brought by E. B. Elliott Company for the use and benefit of Bituminous Casualty Company and Gates against the City of Miami to recover the amount paid out by the insurance company including legal expenses as a result of Gates’ injury. Gates was to receive any surplus over this amount recovered by the judgment. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the City and the plaintiff appealed.
Appellant contends that it was deprived of a fair trial because of the admission of hearsay testimony, improper argument of the defense counsel to the jury, and erroneous charges given by the trial court.
The negligence relied on for recovery was the alleged failure of the City to properly inspect a fire extinguisher in Elliott’s place of business. . All. the errors assigned relate to matters of procedure and a diligent search of the record fails to show that any of them is well grounded. There is a complete dearth of evidence to show negligence on the part of the City so if well taken, we would be confronted with nothing more than harmless error. The judgment is accord*755ingly affirmed on authority of Georgia Southern and F. Ry. Co. v. Ruff, 69 Fla. 93, 67 So. 575.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.