Coombs v. Rice

Citations

• 64 Fla. 202

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for a negligent injury to persons or property, it is in general necessary to allege only ultimate facts showing the relation between the parties out of which the duty to avoid negligence arises under the law, and the act or omission that proximately caused the injury, coupled with an allegation that such act or omission was negligently done or omitted.</p> <p>2. Where the allegations of a declaration show a relation of bailor and bailee for mutual benefit between the plaintiff and defendant, out of which relation there arose a duty to use ordinary care for the preservation of a boat, the subject of the bailment, and state that the “defendant did, by his negligence in fastening said boat or vessel and leaving it unattended at a place exposed to imminent danger from fires, neg-gently permit said boat or vessel to be burned and destroyed by fire,” a cause of action is stated, and in such a case a recovery must be predicated upon proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the burning of the boat as a result of the particular negligence alleged, viz: that the defendant was negligent in fastening the boat and leaving it unattended at the place where it was burned.</p> <p>3. Where a bailment is for mutual benefit, tbe bailee is held to the exercise of ordinary care in relation to the subject matter thereof, and is responsible only for ordinary negligence.</p> <p>4. In an action to recover damages for a negligent injury to property, if the evidence does not support the specific allegations of negligence from which the injury proximately resulted, a verdict for the plaintiff is unauthorized and should be set aside.</p>