Tag: florida personal injury attorney

Posted on

City Owes Duty to Users of Swimming Area

Florida Supreme Court held that the City of Miami Beach owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to the foreseeable users of a swimming area.

The Florida Supreme Court, in the case of Breaux v. City of Miami Beach, SC02-1568 (Fla. 2005), held that the City of Miami Beach owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to the foreseeable users of a swimming area.  In this case, two persons drowned due to rip currents present at a swimming area.  The estates of the deceased sued the City of Miami Beach for negligence in failing to warn of the dangerous condition and not having adequate safety measures in place.  The City of Miami Beach argued that it owed no duty to the deceased because it did not control the swimming area.  Evidence showed that the City did not designate the area as a public beach nor did the City place a lifeguard station at the area. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Florida Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances showed that the City was operating a public swimming area despite its own denials of the same.  Evidence showed that the City built beach facilities at the location (restrooms), provided a metered parking lot, and licensed a concessionaire to provide beach chairs and umbrellas at the location.  In this case, the City did more than just merely provide access to the water, the City actually through its actions held the location out to be a public swimming area and thereby had a duty to warn the public of any dangerous conditions of which it knew or should have known.

Posted on

Utility that Cut Power to Traffic Light Owes Duty to Public

In Florida Power & Light v. Goldberg, 3D00-63 (Fla. 3DCA 2002), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the failure of a utility company to notify a village before cutting power to a traffic light was a breach of a duty to the driving public.

In this case, a girl was killed in a traffic accident involving a traffic signal that was not working.  Prior to the accident, a utility company repair person cut power to a pole that controlled the traffic signal.  The power was turned off so that a repair could be made on a damaged line.

The Court found that the utility company’s duty arose from a contract between the utility company and the village whereby the utility company agreed to notify the village of any planned power outages.  In finding liability, the Court reasoned that the utility company intentionally cut the power and thus the failure of the utility company to advise the village of the loss of power prevented the village from sending a police officer to control the intersection.  The intentional act of cutting power and the failure to warn could not be ignored by the Court as it created a foreseeable risk to others that the utility company had a duty to prevent.

It should be noted that this case is distinguished from Arenado v. Florida Power & Light, 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4DCA 1988), which held that a utility company does not have a common-law duty to warn motorists for power outages to traffic signals that happen by way of an accident, storm or mechanical failure.

css.php