GOFF ET AL.
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE
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.
Lee Annie Goff sued the City of Fort Lauderdale for negligent burns sustained while a patient at a city-operated hospital. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict based on failure to prove negligence and failure to provide statutory notice. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence presented issues for the jury and that notice requirements did not apply when suing on an implied contract theory.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict because the evidence presented issues that should have gone to the jury. Additionally, the plaintiff was not required to give the statutory 30-day notice because she elected to sue on implied contract rather than tort, and notice requirements do not apply to contract actions.
“when the evidence as a whole is considered it presents issues that should have gone to the jury, so the trial court was in error when he instructed a verdict for defendant”
The court held that directed verdict was improper because genuine issues of negligence existed for jury resolution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lee Annie Goff was a pay patient at Broward General Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, which was operated by the City. She alleged she was neglige…
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 Tort Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
This was an action by Lee Annie Goff to recover damages for personal injuries, the complaint alleging that while she was a patient at Broward General Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, she was negligently and severely burned by agents of the Hospital in the application of a hot water bottle to her person. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for directed verdict for failure to prove negligence and for failure to give 30 days notice of the injury as required by the City Charter. The court announced its intention to and did grant the motion. The plaintiff took a non-suit. This appeal was prosecuted.
It is not disputed that plaintiff was a pay patient at Broward General Hospital and that it was operated by the City of Fort Lauderdale. There is considerable .controversy as to whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies to the facts presented. We think it at least aids the plaintiff’s contention but it is our view that when the evidence as a whole is considered it presents issues that should have gone to the jury, so the trial court was in error when he instructed a verdict for defendant.
The trial court also held that the plaintiff was in error .in not giving the City written notice of her claim within 30 days-after receiving the injury as required by the City Charter. Our view about this is that the plaintiff could sue in tort or on implied contract. She elected to pursue the. latter and. was not required to give the notice. In Doyle v. City of Coral Gables, 159 Fla. 802, 33 So. 2d 41, we held that a passenger injured'because of the negligent operation' of a city .bus may ground her action on tort or on implied contract to deliver her safely, and that if she elected to sue on implied contract, notice to the city before bringing the action was immaterial. It is accordingly our view that the judgment appealed from must be and is hereby reversed for a new trial.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, €. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butts v. Cnty. OF Dade, 178 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…cause her cause of action is alleged as a breach of the contract of carriage. Citing: Doyle v. City of Coral Gables, 159 Fla. 802, 33 So. 2d 41 (1947); Holbrook v. City of Sarasota, Fla. 1952, 58 So. 2d 862; Goff v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 1; City of Miami v. Brooks, Fla. 1954, 70 So. 2d 306. The appellee, County, upon the other hand, submits that the cases relied upon by the appellant have created a distinction without a difference, and that the courts, in so ruling, have lost sight of…
-
Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Locke, 75 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1954)…2d 82; West Coast Hospital Ass’n v. Webb, Fla., 52 So. 2d 803; Schott v. Pancoast Properties, Fla., 57 So. 2d 431; Frash v. Sarres, Fla., 60 So. 2d 924; Tampa Transit Lines, Inc., v. Corbin, Fla., 62 So. 2d 10; Goff v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 65 So. 2d 1; Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Reisinger, Fla., 68 So. 2d 589. A fortiori, the need is clearly disclosed in light of this court’s holdings in the exploding bottle cases, where the strict formula previously followed by this court has been extended…
-
Nicholson v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 163 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…rg with specifications as to the time and place of said alleged injury.” (Emphasis added). The lower court was persuaded by the cases of Doyle v. City of Coral Gables, 1947, 159 Fla. 802, 33 So. 2d 41, and Goff v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 1, in its decision that the municipal ordinances were not applicable except in cases on tort, and hence it denied the defendant’s motion. We must therefore look to the ordinances involved in these cases to see whether or not they are the same as the o…
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
- Isabella Doyle v. City OF Coral Gables, 159 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1947)