CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CORINNE LAWSON, 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 jury had sufficient evidence to find the city negligent and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
The plaintiff was injured due to a pothole in the street maintained by the City of Miami. The city argued the plaintiff was contributorily negligent f…
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 Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Miami, defendant in the trial court, appeals from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries. The negligence found was that the city carelessly maintained its street so that a pothole developed and existed for a sufficient period of time that the city was upon constructive notice thereof. The appellant filed twenty-four assignments of error; all of which urge that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant, either, (a) at the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff, or (b) at the close of the testimony, or (c) after verdict.
A careful review of the record in the light of the briefs presented reveals that there was sufficient evidence upon the questions of the dangerous condition of the street and of notice to the city for the determination of their existence to be made by the jury. See City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 1941, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So. 2d 367.
It is ably argued that inasmuch as the plaintiff was crossing the street in the middle of the block and not at a designated crosswalk, she was guilty as a matter of law of negligence contributing to her own injury. There is conflicting evidence as to the existence at the time of the accident of marked crosswalks in the area. It has been decided that the crossing of a street at a point outside of the crosswalk does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law. Brandt v. Dodd, 150 Fla. 635, 8 So.2d 471; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grier v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 660 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…very part of the street is reasonably safe for crossing. In such use, only ordinary care is required.” McQuillin, supra, at § 54.129 [*275] (footnote omitted); see also Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla.1952); City of Miami v. Lawson, 104 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). The plaintiff here was entitled to assume that the street was reasonably safe for her to cross. Notwithstanding the County's overall duty to plaintiff, we find that there is no liability under the circumstances of this case…
-
Ellis Ayers, Jr. v. The City OF Miami & Peoples Gas Sys., Inc., 578 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ury. See City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 148 Fla. 316, 4 So. 2d 367 (1941); Camina v. Parliament Insurance Co., 417 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Packer v. Winston Tower 100 Assoc., Inc., 377 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Miami v. Lawson, 104 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). [*304] The fact that the plaintiff knew of the condition goes to his comparative negligence, and not to the defendant’s liability in the first instance. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973); Lynch v. Brown, 489 So. 2d…
-
City OF Miami v. Altman, 128 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ord and find that there was enough evidence for the cause to have gone to the jury and to support the jury’s verdict and have reached the conclusion that the Judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. See City of Miami v. Lawson, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So. 2d 600; Andrews v. Goetz, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 653; Schutzer v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 492; City of Miami v. Wolff, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So. 2d 270. Affirmed. HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1952)
- Brandt v. Dodd, 150 Fla. 635 (Fla. 1942)
- City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 4 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1941)