MARGARET CAURANT AND JOSEPH CAURANT, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF PUNTA GORDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding which governmental entity was responsible for sidewalk maintenance, making summary judgment improper.
[1] A genuine issue of material fact exists when parties dispute which governmental entity is responsible for the maintenance and control of a sidewalk where an injury occurr…
[2] A party's initial acknowledgment of control over an accident site can create a factual issue when later contradicted by an amended interrogatory answer.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Caurant was injured when she tripped and fell over an elevation in a public sidewalk. The parties disputed whether the City of Punta Gorda or…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
Appellants (the Caurants) bring this appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee (the City) in the Caurants’ action for personal injuries. We reverse.
Margaret Caurant was walking on the sidewalk next to the intersection of Marion Avenue and Tampa Street in Punta Gorda. She tripped and fell over an elevation in the sidewalk and was injured. The question before us is whether there was a factual issue as to which governmental entity — the City of Punta Gorda or Florida Department of Transportation — had maintenance responsibility for the sidewalk where appellant was injured. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, counsel for the City stated that the parties were at odds on the question of who was responsible for the maintenance, control, and ownership of the surrounding sidewalk area where Mrs. Caurant fell.
By its answers to nine separate interrogatories, the City initially acknowledged control of the accident site. Several months thereafter, the City asserted for the first time through an amendment to the answer to one of the interrogatories that the Department of Transportation exercised control over the site. John R. Knight, an employee of the Department of Insurance, Division of Risk Management, wrote a letter advising that the location of the accident was outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. While at his deposition Mr. Knight said he had no specific recollection of the letter, he indicated that he would have obtained the information with which to write it from the maintenance agreements and other records of the Department of Transportation. The foregoing matters were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City had responsibility for the maintenance of the sidewalk at the time Caurant sustained her injuries. Thus, summary judgment was improper. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forcier v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 732 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…lined to believe that Ms. Former's counsel should have responded on a more timely basis to the issue raised by the motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, the circumstances of this case are very similar to those in Caurant v. City of Punta Gorda, 501 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In Caurant, this court reversed a summary judgment in favor of a city because it was unclear whether that city or the Department had the responsibility to maintain a sidewalk. The City’s affidavit is insufficient to resolve this…
-
Broward Cnty. v. City OF Sunrise, 805 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…k, as it was constructed during the annexation period. These issues remain unresolved. [*50] Because neither party has conclusively shown who has responsibility for the sidewalk, summary judgment must be reversed. See Caurant v. City of Punta Gorda, 501 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (reversing summary judgment and holding that absent conclusive proof from either party, the dispute was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding maintenance responsibility). REVERSED and REMANDED. POLEN, C.J., STEV…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)