Case Name: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. STOKES et al.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1954-07-06
Citations: 74 So. 2d 278
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. STOKES et al.
Judges: THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 74
Pages: 278–282

Head Matter:
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. STOKES et al.
Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.
July 6, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1954.
William M. Madison and Inman P. 'Crutchfield, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Noble & Searcy and Henry M. Searcy» Jacksonville, for appellees.

Opinion:
MILLEDGE, Justice.
Marian Stokes, a 12 year old girl, fell as a result of a hole in the sidewalk of a Jacksonville street. She sued the city alleging negligence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the city moved for a. directed verdict on the ground that the little girl was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The motion was. denied. The issue of contributory negligence was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the-amount of $1,000.
The sole question on appeal is whether there was contributory negligence as a matter of law. The city concedes that it was. negligent in permitting the sidewalk hole: to stay unrepaired.
There was not a particle of evidence on the plaintiff's side that the girl' knew of the hole; on the contrary, the-testimony is repetitious and emphatic that, she did not. Even an adult is not careless, in failing to avoid harm unless he is actually-warned or the circumstances warn him. The mere fact that a hole is big enough-to see does not settle the question whether-one should have avoided stepping into it.. If visibility alone settled contributory negligence every case of slipping on a floor or-of encountering any stationary object would-automatically be a case of non-liability for-in all these cases the condition which, caused the harm was visible. The question always is whether the plaintiff used due-care for his own safety, taking into account, all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one, but still only one of the circumstances.
The question is whether one should be aware of the danger. This depends largely upon the likelihood of encountering danger. Very rarely do objects from above cause us harm, so persons are not careless who do not go about examining the sky. One need not look for danger unless there is reason to expect it.
It takes more indication of danger to alert a child than to alert an adult. "Children are necessarily lacking in the knowledge of physical causes and effects which is usually acquired only through experience. They must be expected to act upon childish instincts and impulses, and must be presumed to have less ability to take care of themselves than adults have." Bagdad Land & Lumber Co. v. Boyette, 104 Fla. 699, 140 So. 798, 800. As applied to the class of action here involved, the general statement in 63 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 849, p. 195, suffices:
"An infant of tender years injured by defects or obstructions in the street cannot be charged with contributory negligence, but this does not mean that' a municipality is an insurer of the safety of such child. Even when a child has reached an age when it is deemed in law to be possessed of sufficient discretion to charge it with negligence, it is ordinarily not held to the same degree of care and prudence as would be expected of adults under similar circumstances; but it is guilty of contributory negligence only where it fails to exercise such care and prudence as could be reasonably expected of a child of its age and intelligence under like circumstances."
Even if the plaintiff here were an adult, the issue of contributory negligence was for the jury, but the question of the child's prudence and judgment is itself a question of fact. 38 American Jurisprudence 887.
The city's counsel have cited no ease and we are aware of none in which the contributory negligence of a child has been decided as a question of law.
In whatever situation the law finds children, it usually deals with them differently than it does with adults.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., dissent.