DANIEL RUIZ AND LUCILLE HIGGINS, APPELLANTS,
v.
TARACOMO TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. AND GEORGE ZAMRY, APPELLEES
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 affirmed summary judgment in favor of a condominium association and a motorcycle owner in a negligence case arising from a traffic accident. The plaintiffs were injured when struck by an unidentified vehicle and sued the defendants, but the court held that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the phantom vehicle's negligence in failing to yield the right-of-way, not any negligence by the defendants.
Summary judgment was properly entered for both defendants because the sole proximate cause of the accident was the phantom vehicle's negligence in failing to yield the right-of-way and pulling into Ruiz's path. Even assuming the defendants were negligent, such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident because the phantom vehicle had an unobstructed view before pulling out.
[1] A defendant's negligence is not a proximate cause of an accident if another party's negligence is the sole proximate cause.
[2] A party's negligence in designing a driveway is not a proximate cause of an accident if the driver emerging from the driveway had an unobstructed view of the street.
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 intelligence“the sole proximate cause of the traffic accident sued upon was the negligence of the "phantom" vehicle in failing to yield the right-of-way, in pulling into the path of the plaintiff Daniel Ruiz, and in forcing the plaintiff Ruiz off the road causing serious injuries to Ruiz.”
Establishes the court's core holding that only the phantom vehicle's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Ruiz was injured in a traffic accident when struck by an unidentified "phantom" vehicle that pulled into Ruiz's path and forced him off the roa…
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 Right Of Way cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final summary judgments under review because the record conclusively demonstrates that the sole proximate cause of the traffic accident sued upon was the negligence of the “phantom” vehicle in failing to yield the right-of-way, in pulling into the path of the plaintiff Daniel Ruiz, and in forcing the plaintiff Ruiz off the road causing serious injuries to Ruiz.
Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant Taracomo Townhouse Association, Inc. was guilty of some negligence in the design of its driveway out of which the “phantom” vehicle emerged prior to the accident, it is plain that this negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the subject accident because it is undisputed on this record that the driver of the “phantom” vehicle had an unobstructed view of the street where the plaintiff Ruiz was driving prior to pulling out. Assuming also, without deciding, that the defendant George Zamry was negligent in entrusting his motorcycle to his son Michael, who, in turn, was negligent in entrusting the said motorcycle to the plaintiff Ruiz, this negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the subject accident. As previously indicated, the accident was caused entirely by the negligence of the “phantom” vehicle. This being so, the trial court was eminently correct in entering a final summary judgment in favor of the above two defendants. Arkin Const. Co. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557, 561 (Fla.1957); Metropolitan Dade County v. Colina, 456 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1985); Banat v. Armando, 430 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984); Fellows v. Citizens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 383 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Pope v. Cruise Boat Co., 380 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Memorial Park, Inc. v. Spinelli, 342 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1978); Byrd v. Leach, 226 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sewell v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 245 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…d no right to alter or repair the surface of the roadway, and it had no duty to undertake root trenching or tree topping to retard subterranean root growth. Silver Palm, 541 So. 2d at 627. Similarly, in Ruiz v. Taracomo Townhomes Condominium Ass'n, 525 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), this Court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Association landowner. Id. In that case, the plaintiff, who was driving on a street adjacent to the Association's property, was struck by…
Authorities Cited
- Arkin Constr. Co. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1957)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Colina, 456 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Fouad Banat v. Armando, 430 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Mem'l Park, Inc. v. Spinelli, 342 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Danni Gail Byrd v. Leach, 226 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Linda Gale Pope et vir. v. Cruise Boat Co., Inc., 380 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Cousins Assocs., Inc. v. Cousins, 380 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Fellows v. Citizens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF ST. Lucie Cnty., 383 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)