STEVEN FRANCISCO ADOPTIE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, MARLENE ADOPTIE, AND MARLENE ADOPTIE, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AND FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1983-02-08
Nos. 82-829, 82-830
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
426 So. 2d 1162 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983) Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Adoptie was injured in an intersection accident which was allegedly caused by the inoperability of the traffic light. He sued Florida Power & Light and Southern Bell asserting that the defect resulted from the fact that, some time before, the work crews of either or both negligently cut the power line which supplied electricity to the signal. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint as against the appellees on the ground that their alleged conduct was, as a matter of law, not a legal cause of the plaintiffs damages. Pope v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., 120 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), cert. denied, 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961); Cone v. Inter County Tel. & Tel. Co., 40 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1949).

Affirmed.

Concurrence
NESBITT, Judge

NESBITT, Judge

(specially concurring):

I write to make it clear that my concurrence is based on the fact that any negligence on the part of the appellees was not a proximate cause of appellant’s injuries because the authorities charged with maintenance of the light, see § 316.006, Fla.Stat. (1979), had actual or constructive notice that the power line had been cut and a period of about forty days passed before the accident in question occurred.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Palm Beach-Broward Med. Imaging Ctr., Inc. v. Cont'l Grain Co., 715 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
    …ompany. See Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co., 523 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), petition for rev. dismissed, 541 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1989); Derrer v. Georgia Elec. Co., 537 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Adoptie v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 426 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Arenado, the power company’s transmission light went down and interrupted the flow of electricity to the traffic light. Relying on Justice Cardozo’s opinion in H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896…
  • Staci Levy v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 798 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …ble, 616 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Wright v. Metropolitan Dade County, 547 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Derrer v. Georgia Elec. Co., 537 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Adoptie By and Through Adoptie v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 426 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), was a case where the plaintiff alleged that an inoperable traffic light caused an intersection accident. The allegation was that FP & L or Southern Bell had negligently cut the power line which supplied electricity to the signal.…
  • Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg, 856 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
    …f it constitutes an improbable freak. McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d at 504. These principles are applicable to the original act of negligence by a utility company’s disabling a traffic signal. In Adoptie v. Southern Bell Tel & Tel. Co., 426 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), a utility company was not held liable for injuries sustained due to an inoperable traffic signal to a motorist whose employees had cut the line. This ease does not help the defendant, however, “because the authorities charged wit…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw