COLEMAN
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
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.
Coleman, a bus passenger injured in a collision with the City of St. Petersburg's bus, appealed a judgment on the pleadings dismissing his negligence action as barred by a one-year statute of limitations applicable to municipal defendants. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the constitutionality and applicability of the municipal limitation statute.
The one-year statute of limitations for municipal negligence actions under Section 95.24 is constitutional and applicable. The legislature has the power to impose different limitations periods on actions against municipal corporations than those applicable to private parties. Prior decisions in Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach and Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville support this holding.
“no action shall be brought against any city or village for negligent wrong to person or property unless brought within 12 months from date of the injury”
States the operative statute of limitations that Coleman challenges as unconstitutional and conflicting with general law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. R. Coleman was a passenger on a City of St. Petersburg bus that collided with an automobile at the intersection of 7th Street and 17th Avenue. Cole…
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
TERRELL, Justice.
This action was brought by W. R. Coleman against the City of St. Petersburg to recover damages for personal injuries re- suiting from the collision of a passenger bus of the City with an automobile of a third party at the intersection of 7th Street and 17th Avenue. Coleman alleges that he was a passenger on the bus at the time of the collision and that it was being carelessly and negligently driven by an agent of the City. In its answer the City admitted the accident and the ownership-of the bus, but it denied all other material allegations of the complaint. The answer also alleges that the action is barred by the statute of limitations because suit was not brought within one year from date of the injury. A motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the City was granted and this appeal was prosecuted.
Appellant challenges the applicability of Section 95.24, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A. to the facts of this case.
Section 95.24, provides in effect that no action shall be brought against any city or village for negligent wrong to person or property unless brought within 12 months from date of the injury. Appellant contends (1) that said act is inconsistent with the three year statute of limitations governing the same subject matter; (2) that it violates Sections 16 and 20, Article III of the State Constitution, F.S.A. and (3) it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Appellant also contends that the holding of this Court, Skinner v. City of Eustis, 147 Fla. 22, 2 So. 2d 116, 35 A.L.R. 359, cannot be reconciled with its holding in Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla., 47 So. 2d. 538.
A careful examination of the last cited decision reveals no inconsistency. In Skinner v. City of Eustis the Court was treating a local statute which required suits against the City for personal injuries to be brought within six months. The Court held the act bad because it attempted to regulate the “practice” of the courts in such cases contrary to Section 20, Article III of the Constitution.
In Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach the Court was confronted with the identical act involved in! the case at bar which is a general act affecting all municipalities alike and requires such actions to be brought in one year. The questions raised here were concluded by Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach and Wilson & Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 5 Cir., 170 F. 2d 876, wherein the Court followed Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408, 135 So. 885, 138 So. 486. In the latter case we also held that it was within the power of the legislature to impose limitations on actions against municipal corporations not common to actions again'st private corporations and individuals. It is not material that the act assaulted is different from the general law governing private corporations and individuals since it applies only to municipalities.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., and WARREN, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mather v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 234 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 538 and Coleman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla. 1953, 62 So. 2d 409. WALDEN and REED, JJ., and COOPER, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Visconti v. City OF Titusville, 269 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…ion against a city for trespass upon real property one (1) year under Section 95.24, F.S., [F.S.A.], or three (3) years under Section 95.11 (5) (b), F.S.?”1 [*694] Based upon the rationale as set forth in Coleman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 409, we conclude that the 12-month limitation period prescribed by Section 95.24 is the period of limitation on an action against the City for trespass upon real property. Cf. Parker v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 131. REED, C. J., and WA…
-
Clarkson v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 254 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Coleman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 409; Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 538. WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville, 102 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1931)
- Montverde Dev. Corp. v. Howey-in-the-Hills, 102 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1931)
- Skinner v. City of Eustis, 147 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1941)
- Martineau v. City of Daytona Beach, 47 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1950)
- Wilson & Co., Inc. v. City OF Jacksonville, 170 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1948)