LEIALOHA
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
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.
Leialoha sued Jacksonville for injuries sustained on Kings Avenue due to holes in the road shoulder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding that when the state legislature transferred maintenance and repair of a municipal connecting link road to the State Road Department under Section 341.64, it relieved the municipality of tort liability for injuries occurring on that road.
The City of Jacksonville is not liable for injuries on the street because the legislature, through Section 341.64, removed the maintenance and repair of municipal connecting link roads from municipalities and placed that responsibility with the State Road Department, thereby relieving the municipality of tort liability for injuries occurring on such roads.
“the legislature removed the maintenance and repair of connecting roads from municipalities to the State Road Department and in so doing, relieved the municipality of responding in damages for injuries occurring thereon”
Establishes the court's core holding regarding legislative intent to relieve municipalities of tort liability upon transfer of road maintenance duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Leialoha was injured while operating her automobile on Kings Avenue in Block 1800 (State Road No. 5) due to holes in the road shoulders. 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 Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant sued the City of Jacksonville to recover damages for personal injuries on the theory that the city permitted holes to exist in the shoulders of Kings Avenue in Block 1800, sometimes known as State Road No. 5, whereby she was injured while operating her automobile thereon. The city answered denying negligence, charged contributory negligence and denied that at any time alleged in the complaint it was in possession or control of said highway, that pursuant to Section 341.64, F.S.A., it was designated as a municipal connecting link road and taken over by the State Road Department for maintenance and repair. On the issues so made, motion for summary judgment was granted and final judgment was entered in favor of defendant. This appeal was prosecuted.
The point for determination is whether or not the City of Jacksonville is liable for personal injuries to appellant incurred on one of its streets that had been taken over for maintenance and repair as provided by Section 341.64, F.S.A., the pertinent part of which is as follows:
“The state road department is authorized, empowered, directed and required to maintain and repair under its control and supervision, such designated municipal connecting link roads; to make appropriations and expenditures out of its funds for such purpose; and is authorized to enter into any and all contracts, inclusive of agreements with cities and towns, and with any federal agency of the United States of America authorized and empowered so to do, for such purpose. Provided nothing herein contained shall require the state road department to sweep, sprinkle or light said municipal connecting link roads.”
To reverse the judgment of the trial court appellant relies on City of Tampa v. Easton, 145 Fla. 188, 198 So. 753; City of Tallahassee v. Fortune, 3 Fla. 19 and City of Tallahassee v. Coles, 148 Fla. 606, 4 So. 2d 874. These cases treat the historical liability of a municipality for tort but here we are confronted with a case in which the tort took place on a city street that the legislature had removed from liability by placing it in. the hands of the State Road Department for maintenance and repair, so the cases relied on have no application. While we do not decide the point, it may be that if the city fails to sweep, sprinkle or light a connecting road as contemplated by the proviso in Section 341.64, and damage results therefrom, the city would be required to respond in damages for the injury.
Section 341.64, F.S.A. was enacted in 1941, and a reading of its contents with the context, drives one to the conclusion that the legislature removed the maintenance and repair of connecting roads from municipalities to the State Road Department and in so doing, relieved the municipality of responding in damages for injuries occurring thereon. Barnett v. City of Opelousas, La.App., 13 So. 2d 788; Gillespie v. City of Los Angeles, 36 Cal.2d 553, 225 P. 2d 522; Perry v. City of Cumberland, 312 Ky. 375, 227 S.W. 2d 411; Sloper v. City of Quincy, 301 Mass. 20, 16 N.E. 2d 14.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nobles v. City OF Jacksonville, 265 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…re, situation, or use, it is then under the' obligation to exercise the power of abatement in a reasonable manner, so as to do the least injury to private rights.” [*553] The plaintiff also quotes the following from Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, 64 So. 2d 924 (Fla.1953): “While we do not decide the point, it may be that if the city fails to sweep, sprinkle or light a connecting road as contemplated by the proviso in Section 341.64 and damages result therefrom, the city would be required to respond in da…
-
Melville v. Miami Shores, 155 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…r the supervision of the physical condition of the street on either side of the crossing. We think that under these conditions the summary final judgment must be affirmed upon the basis of the reasoning in Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 924. Appellant has raised a second point addressed to the assessment of costs. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm under authority of the rule stated in Emigh v. Tinter, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 913. Affirmed.…
-
City OF Miami v. Mulholland, 158 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…walk 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…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Tampa v. Easton, 145 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1940)
- The City of Tallahassee v. Justus R. Fortune, 3 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1850)
- City of Tallahassee v. Coles, 4 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1941)