CENTRAL STIKSTOF VERKOOPKANTER, N.V., APPELLANT,
v.
PENSACOLA PORT AUTHORITY, 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.
The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege a causal connection between the alleged captive fires and the fire in suit.
Appellant amended its complaint to allege captive fires on docks, but did not allege any causal connection between these fires and the fire that cause…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Agreeing with the opinion of the District Court in this case, D.C., 205 F. Supp. 724, we affirm with the following-additional comments.
Appellant amended after the reported first dismissal to allege the maintenance of captive fires on and adjacent to the Port Authority docks in the form of steam operated ships, cranes, derricks, and drag-lines on which steam boilers were fired by oil or coal, and that one such ship was secured to its docks at the time the fire in suit was discovered. There was no allegation whatever of any causal connection between such al leged captive fire or fires and the origin of the fire in suit.
The District Court then held that the complaint as amended failed to state a cause of action. Appellant declined to amend further, and the motion of the Port Authority to dismiss with prejudice was granted.
Appellant urges that the doctrine of res ipsa, loquitur saves it from dismissal. This is on the premise that the Port Authority owned and controlled the dock where the fire originated. This assertion is untenable in view of the allegation that the loss in question was occasioned by a fire of unknown origin. See McKinney Supply Co. v. Orovitz, Fla., 1957, 96 So. 2d 209; and Prosser on Torts, 2d Ed., p. 203. Appellant is foreclosed by the absence of allegations in the complaint creating a duty toward it on the part of the Port Authority, and absent duty; there can be no actionable negligence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickerson, Inc. v. Buckley, 261 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
-
McGOVERN v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co. v. Almacenes Miramar, Inc., 649 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1981)
Authorities Cited
- McKINNEY Supply Co. v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1957)