MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIODORO HOYOS AND ALEIDA HOYOS, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a negligence judgment against Miami-Dade County. The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to find that the county had constructive notice of a dangerous condition caused by a protruding manhole cover.
Yes, the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant submission of the issue of constructive notice to the jury, and therefore the county had sufficient notice.
“In a claim for negligence against a local government for failure to keep its streets and walkways in a reasonably safe condition, a plaintiff must show that the local government knew, or had a reasonable cause to know, of the defective condition a sufficient length of time so that it could have been repaired.”
Establishes the legal standard for negligence claims against local governments regarding street conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEliodoro Hoyos tripped and fell when his foot caught the edge of a manhole cover that protruded 7/16" from the ground due to a defective ring. The cov…
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 Constructive Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Miami-Dade County appeals from an adverse judgment in an action for negligence, claiming failure to prove actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. We affirm.
On December 17, 1997, while walking in an alley frequently traveled by pedestrians behind the back entrance to a bank, Elio-doro Hoyos tripped and fell when his foot was caught by the edge of a manhole cover. At trial, Hoyos presented evidence that there was a defective ring in the manhole cover which caused it to protrude 7/16" from the ground, that the cover was discolored and rusted, and that the County was the only entity responsible for installation and maintenance of the manhole cover. According to the county’s witness, the inner seal of the manhole cover had been repaired in 1995, and was found to be in need of repair in 1999. County records showed no other accidents occurring in the area prior to Hoyos’ accident in 1997. The county claims the plaintiff failed to prove the county had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
In a claim for negligence against a local government for failure to keep its streets and walkways in a reasonably safe condition, a plaintiff must show that the local government knew, or had a reasonable cause to know, of the defective condition a sufficient length of time so that it could have been repaired. See e.g., Castano v. City of Miami, 840 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Grier v. Metropolitan Dade County, 660 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Generally, the issue of constructive notice is best left to a jury when there is evidence presented in support of the existence of such notice. Lisanti v. City of Port Richey, 787 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We find the plaintiffs evidence herein sufficient to warrant submission of the issue to the jury. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered below.
GERSTEN, J., concurs.
SHEPHERD, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The operative facts in this case are that Miami-Dade County repaired the manhole in question in 1995 and that the Plaintiff tripped and fell on December 17, 1997. The County had no actual notice of the condition prior to the accident. The later repair of the manhole shown in the County records is irrelevant to the issue of notice. Nor was it possible to attribute a length of time to the existence of the condition, from which an inference of constructive notice may perhaps have been drawn.
Where, as here, the record is devoid of any evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the defect, the County cannot be found liable. San Miguel v. City of Miami, 760 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). A municipality is not an insurer of pedestrians traveling on its streets or sidewalks. Grier v. Metropolitan Dade County, 660 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). I see no jury issue on the facts of this case and would therefore reverse the judgment rendered in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellee, with directions that judgment be entered for DefendanVAppellant Miami-Dade County.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeman v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 954 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…al of the city’s motion for directed verdict, because the jury could reasonably have deduced that the worn condition of the manhole cover had existed for a long enough time as to charge the city with constructive notice); Miami-Dade County v. Hoyos, 874 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (affirming the trial court’s denial of the county’s motion for directed verdict, stating that whether the county had constructive notice of the defective manhole cover is “best left to a jury when there is evidence presented…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Martin (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Lisanti v. City OF Port Richey, 787 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Grier v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 660 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Miguel v. City OF Miami, 760 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- P.F.G., Inc. v. SPP Real Est. (Continental Plaza), Inc., 840 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Donaldson v. State, 760 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)