Murdoch v. City of Jacksonville Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murdoch v. City of Jacksonville Beach

197 So. 2d 845, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1967

DocketNo. I-241

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 So. 2d 845 (Murdoch v. City of Jacksonville Beach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murdoch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 197 So. 2d 845, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

In this negligence action plaintiffs Murdochs appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with its previous motion for directed verdict The Mur-dochs in their complaint attempted to allege negligence on the part of the City of Jacksonville Beach upon the theory that when the street level was lowered, the City was negligent in allowing the sidewalk to remain nine inches higher than the new curbing, which formed part of the one step between the sidewalk and the street level. The step was clearly visible, and a yellow "safety stripe” was painted on the edge of the sidewalk. The Murdochs concluded that this constituted a hazardous dropoff knowingly created and maintained by the City for several years and was the proximate cause of Mrs. Murdoch’s injury. There was no proof of any hole, crack or other defect in the sidewalk which caused Mrs. Murdoch to fall. Steps and elevated floor levels are common in public places, and when readily visible do not constitute negligence per se.¹ A careful examination of the transcript of testimony fails to reveal any competent evidence of negligence on the part of the City proximately causing the injury suffered by Mrs. Murdoch. The only error committed by the trial judge was his failure to grant the motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case.

The judgment is affirmed.

JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

In this negligence action plaintiffs Murdochs appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with its previous motion for directed verdict The Mur-dochs in their complaint attempted to allege negligence on the part of the City of Jacksonville Beach upon the theory that when the street level was lowered, the City was negligent in allowing the sidewalk to remain nine inches higher than the new curbing, which formed part of the one step between the sidewalk and the street level. The step was clearly visible, and a yellow "safety stripe” was painted on the edge of the sidewalk. The Murdochs concluded that this constituted a hazardous dropoff knowingly created and maintained by the City for several years and was the proximate cause of Mrs. Murdoch’s injury. There was no proof of any hole, crack or other defect in the sidewalk which caused Mrs. Murdoch to fall. Steps and elevated floor levels are common in public places, and when readily visible do not constitute negligence per se.¹ A careful examination of the transcript of testimony fails to reveal any competent evidence of negligence on the part of the City proximately causing the injury suffered by Mrs. Murdoch. The only error committed by the trial judge was his failure to grant the motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case.

The judgment is affirmed.

JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 2d 845, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdoch-v-city-of-jacksonville-beach-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack