Britt v. City of Ocala

Supreme Court of Florida

Britt v. City of Ocala

65 So. 2d 753, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1336

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 So. 2d 753 (Britt v. City of Ocala) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britt v. City of Ocala, 65 So. 2d 753, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1336 (Fla. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant as plaintiff and a minor brought this action by his next friend against the City of Ocala to recover damages for personal ■ injuries. He charges that he was taken in custody by defendant while he was bleeding and unconscious as the result of a serious head injury, that his condition was well known t^j defendant who neglectfully failed to give him medical attention. An answer was filed, motion for summary judgment was granted and the cause was dismissed. This appeal is from the order of dismissal.

The point raised here goes to the alleged negligence of the city in its failure to furnish medical aid to appellant at the time he was arrested. The city contends that it was performing ■ a governmental function and was immune for tort.

In Williams v. City of Green Cove Springs, Fla., 65 So.2d 56, the point was thoroughly considered and a majority of this court held that the city was not liable. The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed on authority of- the .last cited case, the instant case having been litigated on the same theory.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant as plaintiff and a minor brought this action by his next friend against the City of Ocala to recover damages for personal ■ injuries. He charges that he was taken in custody by defendant while he was bleeding and unconscious as the result of a serious head injury, that his condition was well known t^j defendant who neglectfully failed to give him medical attention. An answer was filed, motion for summary judgment was granted and the cause was dismissed. This appeal is from the order of dismissal.

The point raised here goes to the alleged negligence of the city in its failure to furnish medical aid to appellant at the time he was arrested. The city contends that it was performing ■ a governmental function and was immune for tort.

In Williams v. City of Green Cove Springs, Fla., 65 So.2d 56, the point was thoroughly considered and a majority of this court held that the city was not liable. The judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed on authority of- the .last cited case, the instant case having been litigated on the same theory.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 2d 753, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-city-of-ocala-fla-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack