MARGARET DRAMSTADT, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND WEST PALM BEACH WATER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Dramstadt sued West Palm Beach and its water company after tripping on a water meter box protruding from a parkway at night. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that cities and water companies owe no duty to warn of hazards in parkways where the public is not expected to trespass, particularly at night.
Summary judgment was properly granted because the city and water company owed no duty to warn of hazards in parkways where the public is not expected to go, particularly at night. Those who use such areas do so at their own risk. The city is not liable in such circumstances, though this does not preclude liability of the water company in other factual situations.
“In Florida by weight of authority the city is not liable in situations similar to this but that in no sense implies that the water company may not be liable.”
Establishes the distinction in liability between municipal governments and water companies in parkway hazard cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 5, 1953, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Dramstadt alighted from a parked automobile and walked across a grass parkway strip inside the curb i…
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant instituted this action against appellees to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint charges inter alia that about 11:00 P.M., January S, 1953, she alighted from an automobile parked in front of 334 Murray Road, West Palm Beach, stepped on a grass strip of parkway inside the curb that was lawfully used by pedestrians; that West Palm Beach Water Company had installed a water meter box in said parkway which protruded above the ground about two inches so as to constitute an impediment on the path of those using the parkway; that there were no signs or lights to warn of the presence of said meter box, account of which plaintiff tripped and fell, injuring herself seriously.
Appellees as defendants interposed answers to the complaint and moved for summary judgment, to which motion they attached photographs of the locus. Affidavits and counter affidavits were also filed and the motion for summary judgment was granted on the theory that the area where the water meter box was placed was not intended to be used by pedestrians and being so, the plaintiff could not recover damages against defendants for any injury she received when walking on the parkway. The complaint was accordingly dismissed and the plaintiff has appealed from that order. Two questions are raised but the real point in issue is whether or not the pleadings presented a question of negligence or contributory negligence that should have been submitted to a jury.
It is a matter of common knowledge that water meter boxes are frequently placed in parkways and much case law has been promulgated from controversies arising out of them. To discuss them would require a long opinion that would amount to nothing more than a venture in logomachy which I am not inclined to take because it would add nothing to the law. This is true because each case arises from the peculiar facts, is not a precedent for future adjudications so a lengthy recital of them would serve no useful purpose. It is further true because strong cases can usually be stated concisely while a weak one requires “words, words, words,” and the further extended, the weaker the case gets.
In Florida by weight of authority the city is not liable in situations similar to this but that in no sense implies that the water company may not be liable. Gulf Refining Co. v. Gilmore, 112 Fla. 366, 152 So. 621. In the case at bar appellant alighted from the automobile at night and proceeded along the parkway where pedestrians were not supposed to go in the nighttime. There was no walkway there, but she was apparently using the parkway to effect a “short cut” to her destination. Under such cicumstances this court has approved the doctrine that the city is not liable, that those who use such areas do so at their own risk. Owners or holders of premises are not required to place warning signals on property where the public is not expected to go. A casual look at the photographs of the parkway involved here (introduced in evidence) shows conclusively that it was intended to beautify the terrain and not to be used as a walkway by pedestrians. True, there were no “Keep Off the Grass” signs displayed but the very nature of the high shrubbery in the parkway inhibited trespassing, particularly in the nighttime. Night Racing Ass’n, Inc., v. Green, Fla., 1954, 71 So. 2d 500; Brant v. Van Zandt, Fla., 1954, 77 So. 2d 858; Kitchen v. City of Jacksonville, 158 Fla. 621, 29 So. 2d 441, and City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 149 Fla. 326, 5 So. 2d 593.
A city or the water company is not required to exercise the same degree of care for the safety of pedestrians in parkways as it is over streets and sidewalks. In this holding we do not overlook the doctrine of the cases cited in Mast v. Galena, 168 Kan. 628, 215 P. 2d 152, 19 A.L.R.2d 1053, 1080; Vol. 25, American Jurisprudence, Section 407, and others but Florida has adopted a different rule, in view of which the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savignac v. Dep't OF Transp., 406 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…cumstances, where a person uses property for purposes for which it was not intended, the owner generally has no duty to warn of dangers on the property, and those who so use the property do so at their own risk. Dranstadt v. City of West Palm Beach, 81 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1955); Biltmore Terrace Associates v. Kegan, 130 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. discharged, 154 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1963). The owner is required only to maintain the facilities in question “in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes to w…
-
City OF Pensacola v. Stamm, 448 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…of care to maintain grass strips located in swales or parkway areas. City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 149 Fla. 326, 5 So. 2d 593 (1942); Kitchen, et al. v. City of Jacksonville, 158 Fla. 621, 29 So. 2d 441 (1947); Dramstadt v. City of West Palm Beach, 81 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1955); Musetto v. City of Miami Beach, 82 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1955); Lisk v. City of West Palm Beach, 160 Fla. 632, 36 So. 2d 197 (1948); Kass v. City of Miami Beach, 436 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). All of these cases are distinguishable. None…
-
Musetto v. City OF Miami Beach, 82 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1955)…on authority of City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 149 Fla. 326, 5 So. 2d 593; Kitchen v. City of Jacksonville, 158 Fla. 621, 29 So. 2d 441; City of Fort Lauderdale v. Duchine, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 897; and Dramstadt v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 484. All of these cases, like the case at bar, attempt'to fasten negligence on the municipality for injury tó persons stepping in depressions or stumbling over water meter boxes in grass plots or parkways that are provided and maintained to beautify t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rupp Hotel Operating Co. v. Donn, 158 Fla. 541 (Fla. 1947)
- City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 5 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1942)
- Hedwig Kitchen v. City OF Jacksonville, 158 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1947)
- Gulf Ref. Co. v. Nannie P. Gilmore, 112 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1933)
- Night Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Green, 71 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1954)
- Brant v. van Zandt, 77 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1954)
- Nofal v. Piper, 77 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1954)