CONTINENTAL INS. CO. AND COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. B. BELFLOWER, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a $10,000 judgment against Volusia County for injuries from a concrete slab on a dirt road, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the county's duty to maintain the road because the statutory presumption of dedication under Fla. Stat. § 95.361 was not satisfied.
The evidence was insufficient to submit to the jury the issue of the County's negligence in failing to clear obstacles from a road where the statutory presumption of dedication was not established.
[1] A statutory presumption of road dedication under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“continuously and uninterruptedly for four years”
The statutory requirement for presuming dedication of a road under Section 95.361, Florida Statutes (1975)
Belflower was injured when his car struck a concrete slab off the surface of a narrow dirt road near Edgewater. The jury found Belflower 80% negligent…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
Volusia County and its insurer appeal from a money judgment entered on a jury verdict that appellee Belflower was damaged to the extent of $50,000 when he was injured as his car struck a concrete slab off the surface of a narrow dirt road near Edgewater. The judgment was for $10,000, reflecting the jury’s finding that Belflower’s negligence was 80 percent responsible for the accident and the County’s negligence was 20 percent responsible.
The evidence was insufficient to submit to the jury the issue of the County’s asserted negligence in failing to clear obstacles from the grassy area adjoining the road and in failing to post signs warning of such obstacles. There is no evidence of formal dedication of the road. Belflower’s case rests entirely on Section 95.361, Florida Statutes (1975), which presumes dedication from county maintenance and repair “continuously and uninterruptedly for four years.” There was evidence that a county commissioner caused the road to be cut many years ago and that twice since then other commissioners caused shell to be placed on portions of the road for the convenience of hunters. But there was an entire absence of evidence that even these desultory activities occurred within a four year period, or that the county performed any inspection or repair “continuously and uninterruptedly for four years” on what otherwise must be regarded as a private road. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for entry of judgment for appellants.
REVERSED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
A jury question was presented as to whether the road where the accident occurred was a county road under Florida Statute § 95.361. The evidence presented here was substantially similar to that in Pasco County v. Johnson, 67 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1953) wherein the court held that the county’s cleaning up of bush, stumps and trees and filling up of holes and ruts in an unpaved rural road satisfies the statutory requirements of a presumed dedication. Accord, Lovey v. Escambia County, 141 So. 2d 761 (1st DCA 1962), findings of trial court and testimony quoted at 141 So. 2d 770-771.
A closer question, but still one for the jury, was presented as to the county’s negligence in failing to warn of, or to remove, the hidden concrete abutment, an unexpected and unnatural obstacle, immediately adjacent to the edge of the narrow roadway.
I would affirm the judgment below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodges v. The City OF Winter Park, 433 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…le traffic was using it as a roadway. The manhole jutting up out of the soft sand was clearly hazardous to such traffic. In its order granting the motions for summary judgment, the trial court relied upon Continental Insurance Company v. Belflower, 355 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and section 95.361, Florida Statutes. Section 95.361(1), Florida Statutes (1975), states: When a road, constructed by a county, a municipality, or the Division of Road Operations, has been maintained or repaired continuously an…
-
Pasco v. City OF Oldsmar, 953 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…tatutory requirements for a presumption of dedication. Section 95.361(1) requires more than occasional, or even periodic, [*770] maintenance or repair; it requires continuous and uninterrupted maintenance or repair. See Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Belflower, 355 So. 2d 840, 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (reversing conclusion that road was dedicated to county under section 95.361 when “there was an entire absence of evidence that even these desultory activities [of cutting the road and twice causing shell to be placed on por…
Authorities Cited
- Lovey v. Escambia Cnty., 141 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Pasco Cnty. v. Johnson et ux., 67 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1953)