VIRGINIA MELVILLE AND J. G. MELVILLE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI SHORES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD (THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY) A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 County, not the City, was responsible for maintaining the railroad crossing, thus affirming the summary judgment for the City.
Plaintiffs sued the City for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a railroad crossing within the city limits. The crossing was assumed to be in a …
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal a summary final judgment for Miami Shores Village, one of the defendants in an action brought for personal injuries to the plaintiff, Virginia Melville, who alleged she was injured when she fell while walking across a railroad crossing. The crossing was within the city limits and for the purposes of this appeal may be assumed to have been in a condition which a jury might find to be dangerous to a pedestrian.
The principle question upon this appeal is whether the responsibility for requiring the railroad company to properly maintain the crossing was in the City or the County. The appellant relies upon the provisions of Chapter 357, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., entitled “Railroad Crossings,” to support its position.
The street on which the crossing was located had been designated by action of the Board of County Commissioners as an arterial highway. By resolution the County had assumed the duty for the supervision of the physical condition of the street on either side of the crossing. We think that under these conditions the summary final judgment must be affirmed upon the basis of the reasoning in Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 924.
Appellant has raised a second point addressed to the assessment of costs. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm under authority of the rule stated in Emigh v. Tinter, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 913.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schonfield v. City OF Coral Gables, 174 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…hat street, and when the city has been relieved of its duty of maintenance by such a resolution, the sole responsibility for the proper maintenance of the street was that of the county and not of the city. See Melville v. Miami Shores, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 739. In any event, any defects surrounding Dade County’s taking over and maintaining the street, were cured by the adoption of the Home Rule Charter of Metropolitan Dade County, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of the State of…
-
Rajchl v. City OF Miami, 353 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…the Dade County Code which shows that the operation of the traffic control system in Dade County has been preempted by Metropolitan Dade County. See Schonfield v. City of Coral Gables, 174 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); and Melville v. Miami Shores, 155 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). We excluded from our consideration this argument of the City’s lack of responsibility because the trial judge expressly denied the City’s motion for summary judgment and granted the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The ord…
Authorities Cited
- Emigh v. Tinter, 108 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Leialoha v. City of Jacksonville, 64 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1953)