Brinson v. City of Mulberry, (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 23
Judges: BUFORD, C.J. —
Attorneys: Hampton Bull and Lee J. Clyatt, for Plaintiff in Error;
Johnson, Bosarge Allen, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Feb. 17, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was a suit against the City of Mulberry for damages alleged to have been sustained by the dangerous condition of a public street in said municipality. It appears from the record that there was a narrow paved *Page 249 street in such municipality passing between two large and deep pits which had been excavated in the mining of phosphate and which had been left open and were, to some extent, filled with water. The street was paved a width of about 14 feet and had shoulders between two and thr
Summary: This was a suit against the City of Mulberry for damages alleged to have been sustained by the dangerous condition of a public street in said municipality. It appears from the record that there was a narrow paved *Page 249 street in such municipality passing between two large and deep pits which had been excavated in the mining of phosphate and which had been left open and were, to some extent, filled with water. The street was paved a width of about 14 feet and had shoulders between two and thre..
More
I concur in the holding that the judgment of the court below should be reversed on account of the error committed by instructing a verdict for defendant. But I cannot concur fully in what is said in regard to the legal sufficiency of declarations and pleas of contributory negligence in actions for damages for injuries caused by negligence. We have held that a declaration is sufficient if it alleges the particular act or omission causing the injury, coupled with the averment that it was negligently done or omitted. And in McLeod Construction Company vs. Cooper, 134 So. 224 it was held that this liberal rule might be applied to pleas of contributory negligence. Under this rule, the second and third pleas were in my opinion almost good pleas. I concur that the court would have been in error in granting motion to strike these pleas, though they were probably subject to demurrer. But the fourth plea of contributory negligence was so vague and general as to aver merely a legal conclusion and I am inclined to the view that there was no error in striking same.
Source: CourtListener
