TOWN OF PALM BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
v.
EDNA C. VLAHOS, A WIDOW
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 Florida Supreme Court modified a prior opinion, clarifying that a municipality can be liable for its vehicle's operation outside city limits, thus affirming the lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer to a plea that claimed otherwise.
No, the "2nd Plea" was not good because a municipality can be liable for damages caused by its vehicle's operation beyond its corporate limits under certain circumstances.
“The plea was not good. It was too broad because there may be many instances and conditions under which a municipality may be held liable for damage occasioned by the operation of one of its automobiles or trucks outside the corporate limits.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the defendant's plea insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Palm Beach filed a motion for leave to file an extraordinary petition for rehearing, challenging the court's prior holding that the defend…
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.
On motion for leave to file extraordinary petition for rehearing, appellee insists that we were in error when we held in the opinion and judgment filed herein, on October 22, 1943, that the “2nd Plea” filed by defendant on December 7, 1942, reading as follows:
“And for a second plea to the first count of the declaration, defendant says that at the time and place therein alleged the said automobile of the defendant was being operated by Elmer Schultz, Fire Chief of the Town of Palm Beach, and beyond the corporate limits of said municipality.”, was a good plea and that the sustaining of demurrer thereto was erroneous.
The plea was not good. It was too broad because there may be many instances and conditions under which a municipality may be held liable for damage occasioned by the operation of one of its automobiles or trucks outside the corporate limits.
Therefore, the sustaining of demurrer to that plea was without error and our opinion in that regard is hereby modi*160fied. As this modification can have no effect requiring a change of our judgment the mandate is recalled for the purpose of entering this order when it shall be reissued as based on the original opinion as herein modified.
So ordered.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hand v. City OF N. Miami, 211 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…of the municipal employee beyond the geographical boundaries of the municipality and, therefore, the municipality would not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. See: Town of Palm Beach v. Vlahos, 153 Fla. 781, 15 So. 2d 839, modified 154 Fla. 159, 15 So. 2d 848; City of Coral Gables v. Giblin, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 914; Collins v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 700. Affirmed.…