Hardin v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: DAVIS, J.
Attorneys: C.B. Peeler, for Plaintiff in Error.
Julian Hartridge, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jun. 16, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Upon consideration of a demurrer interposed by plaintiff to certain of defendant's pleas to plaintiff's third amended declaration, the Circuit Court visited the demurrer on plaintiffs's declaration and entered final judgment thereon in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff in the Court below has prosecuted this writ of error to that judgment. As basis for recovery plaintiff alleged substantially the following facts: That on a certain date, the defendant *Page 632 was in possession and control of a c
Summary: Upon consideration of a demurrer interposed by plaintiff to certain of defendant's pleas to plaintiff's third amended declaration, the Circuit Court visited the demurrer on plaintiffs's declaration and entered final judgment thereon in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff in the Court below has prosecuted this writ of error to that judgment. As basis for recovery plaintiff alleged substantially the following facts: That on a certain date, the defendant *Page 632 was in possession and control of a ce..
More
I concur in the conclusion because the allegations of the declaration were insufficient to show any duty resting upon the defendant either to construct or maintain the alleged retaining wall. If the declaration had alleged that the defendant negligently deposited the alleged liquid substance on its premises and negligently and carelessly allowed the same to flow to and upon the street in addition to what was alleged in the declaration the infirmity would have been cured. There is no allegation as to the origin of or duty to control the flow of the alleged liquid substance.
Source: CourtListener
