Jacksonville v. Bell, (1927)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Austin Miller, Gov. Hutchinson, Emmet Safay and Harvey Mabry,
for Plaintiff in Error;
George C. Bedell and Chester Bedell, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Apr. 19, 1927
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In this case the defendant in error sued the City of Jacksonville for damages resulting from injuries which she alleged were caused by driving a Ford car against an alleged obstruction in the street during the dark hours of the morning and when at the time the so-called obstruction was unlighted. She recovered a judgment for $6,000.00 and the defendant brings writ of error. The undisputed evidence shows that the obstruction complained of is what is known as a "safety island", that is a concrete
Summary: In this case the defendant in error sued the City of Jacksonville for damages resulting from injuries which she alleged were caused by driving a Ford car against an alleged obstruction in the street during the dark hours of the morning and when at the time the so-called obstruction was unlighted. She recovered a judgment for $6,000.00 and the defendant brings writ of error. The undisputed evidence shows that the obstruction complained of is what is known as a "safety island", that is a concrete p..
More
I concur fully in the announcement of legal principles as made by Mr. Justice BUFORD, but I think the question of whether or not the light was kept burning by the defendant so as to give warning of the obstruction presented a question of negligence vel non for the jury to decide, and that there was enough evidence to sustain the jury's finding — The same thing applies to the question of contributory negligence — We cannot in this case say that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law — Previous knowledge of this street and obstruction would not necessarily mean that plaintiff was negligent in hitting the obstruction in the darkness. The "safety zones" are narrow, and it would be hard for a person well acquainted with the street to tell in the darkness their exact location — Hence the city owes the public (including that portion of it that is familiar with the street) the duty to keep lights burning, so these safety islands may be avoided — I think therefore the judgement should be affirmed.
Source: CourtListener
