8 So. 2d 924 | Fla. | 1942
Final judgment is before us for review on writ of error. The lower court held plaintiff's declaration insufficient and entered judgment for defendant.
The substance of the declaration was that defendant maintained a bathing beach outside the city limits; that for some time the city had knowingly allowed a deep hole out in the lake to remain hidden and unguarded; that the city had invited the general public on the premises and plaintiff's husband and minor son entered in response to the invitation and were drowned by reason of the city's negligence aforesaid.
The city has charter power to maintain parks outside the city. Chapter 14377, Special Acts of 1929. It *808 was the opinion of the lower court that this power could be exercised only on land acquired by the city as detailed in its charter. We think this interpretation was error.
If the city had charter power to maintain a park outside the corporate limits, then the city is answerable for a tort committed while exercising the corporate franchise even though it has no title to the property where the park is located. For the purpose of determining the city's liability in tort in maintaining the park the ownership of the land where the park is located is immaterial. Augustine v. Town of Brant,
The authorities are divided, however we think the better view is that where a city, pursuant to charter power, performs a local function for its people it is held to the same degree of care as private persons. Stevens, et ux., v. City of Pittsburg,
For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.