DOROTHEA CONRAN, APPELLANT,
v.
IRENE K. YOUNG, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, CITY OF OAKLAND PARK AND BROWARD COUNTY, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1984-11-14
Nos. 84-378, 84-1422
DOWNEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
458 So. 2d 870 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Dorothea Conran appeals summary judgments in her personal injury case arising from an automobile collision at a failed traffic signal in Oakland Park. The court reversed summary judgment against Broward County because material factual disputes existed regarding whether the county's repairman exercised reasonable care and whether negligence caused the second traffic signal failure, but affirmed summary judgment against the City of Oakland Park because it had transferred all traffic control maintenance duties to the county.


Holding

Summary judgment was improper as to Broward County because material factual disputes existed regarding whether the repairman exercised reasonable care and whether any negligence proximately caused the collision. Summary judgment was properly granted for the City of Oakland Park because it had transferred all traffic control duties to Broward County and bore no liability for the county's maintenance decisions.


Headnotes

[1] Summary judgment is precluded when the movant fails to conclusively show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and overcome all reasonable inferences in favor…

[2] Conflicting deposition testimony regarding the reasonableness of a repairman's actions raises a material issue of fact.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the movant must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact”

Establishes the standard for summary judgment and what the movant must prove.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was injured in a collision at an intersection in Oakland Park controlled by a traffic signal. Approximately four hours before the accident, …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
DELL, Judge.

DELL, Judge.

Dorothea Conran appeals from summary final judgments granted in favor of the City of Oakland Park and Broward County.

Appellant sustained personal injuries as a result of an intersectional automobile collision which occurred in the City of Oakland Park. Prior to the collision, neither driver saw an inoperative traffic signal which controlled the intersection. Approximately four hours before the accident, Bro-ward County had dispatched a repairman to fix the traffic light. The repairman found a blown fuse which he replaced, and after he watched the light cycle for about five to ten minutes he proceeded to another intersection. He did not do any further testing to determine what had caused the fuse to blow.

The traffic light failed a second time and the automobile collision occurred. Later that evening, the County’s repairman returned to the intersection and again found that the fuse had blown. This time he investigated the cause of the blown fuse and discovered a short in the amber light, which he then repaired.

Appellant argues that issues of material fact exist which preclude summary judgment. We agree.

On summary judgment, “the mov-ant must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact....” Willis v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 351 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla.1977) (emphasis original). Further, “[t]he proof must be such as to overcome all reasonable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the opposing party.” Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla.1966). The County asserts that its worker used reasonable care in repairing the light during the first repair and that the negligence of the repairman, if any, was not a cause of the second failure of the traffic light. The parties presented conflicting deposition testimony as to whether the repairman acted reasonably when he first repaired the light. The County then argues that appellant’s expert failed to establish that the short which caused the light to fail the second time existed at the time of the initial repair. We have reviewed the record and find sufficient unrebutted circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that the short existed when the repairman first repaired the light.

The record demonstrates questions of material fact as to the manner in which the repairman repaired the light and whether his failure to exercise reasonable care, if any, constituted the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, we reverse summary judgment with regard to Broward County.

However, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of the City of Oakland Park. Having transferred all of its responsibilities and duties to maintain traffic control devices to Broward County pursuant to a Home Rule Amendment, the City of Oakland Park cannot be held liable even if Broward County negligently repaired the light. Jaramillo v. City of Coral Gables, 436 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Appellant also asserts that when the light first failed the City placed four-way stop signs at the intersection, and therefore undertook the duty to warn of danger. However, appellant did not furnish any evidence that the signs were present when the light failed the second time and if so that it was the City of Oakland Park which removed them prior to the accident. Thus we affirm the summary judgment in favor of the City.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DOWNEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
    …courts will not be disposed to granting a summary judgment in his favor.” Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29, 31 (Fla.1977); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 362 So. 2d 414, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); see Conran v. Young, 458 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); cf. Daytona Dev. Corp. v. McFarland, 505 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (summary judgment improper where issue remained concerning whether attorney’s performance amounted to negligence). Although the parties do not ap [*1365] pea…
  • Martin v. Nemec, 526 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
    …e v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein and Stauber, P.A., 467 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse on the authority of Wills v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Conran v. Young, 458 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw