HECTOR GARCIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF HIALEAH, ET AL., 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.
Motorist Garcia sued the City of Hialeah, another motorist Nolan, and gas station lessee Larralde after his vehicle was struck by Nolan's vehicle while exiting Ed's Shell Service Station, allegedly because shrubbery obscured his visibility. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, but the appellate court affirmed as to the City and reversed as to Nolan and Larralde, finding genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.
Summary judgment was properly granted as to the City of Hialeah, but was improperly granted as to defendants Nolan and Larralde. Genuine issues of material fact existed regarding each party's liability, including the collision's location, visibility conditions, and the lessee's duty to maintain reasonably safe access to the business.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment must prove the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.
[2] Conflicting evidence regarding vehicle speed, location after a collision, and visibility obstructions presents questions for the jury.
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“court must draw every possible inference in favor of party against whom summary judgment motion was granted”
Establishes the standard that trial courts must apply when considering summary judgment motions, favoring the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia was injured when leaving Ed's Shell Service Station on Okeechobee Road in Hialeah and his vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by Kent Hilton…
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 Summary Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Motorist Hector Garcia claims he was injured when, upon leaving Ed’s Shell Service Station on Okeechobee Road in Hialeah, his visibility was obscured by shrubbery and his vehicle was struck by a vehicle defendant Kent Hilton Nolan was driving. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, the City of Hialeah, who Garcia alleged was responsible for the shrubbery, motorist Nolan, and the station’s lessee, Eliadio Larralde. We affirm as to the City of Hialeah and reverse as to defendants Nolan and Lar-ralde.
Although motorist Nolan did attempt to come forward and show that Garcia was the sole proximate cause of the accident, he did not completely dispel every inference as to liability. There was conflicting evidence as to where in the multi-lane road the collision actually occurred leaving questions as to each party’s visibility and speed at the time of the accident. See Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977) (court must draw every possible inference in favor of party against whom summary judgment motion was granted); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966) (party moving for summary judgment must prove the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact); Toll v. Waters, 138 Fla. 349, 189 So. 393 (1939) (conflicting evidence as to speed of auto, location thereof after collision, and presence of house and trees obscuring vision of drivers, presented questions for jury). Consequently, there are issues here remaining for trial.
With respect to the defendant Lar-ralde, any liability derived from the fact that he owed a duty to provide reasonably safe ingress and egress to business invitees using his gasoline station.1 While Larralde claims he neither owned nor maintained the shrubbery on the area in question, he also testified that he did pick up debris which accumulated in the area such as papers, cans, and bottles. Consequently, there remains a question as to whether he reasonably discharged his duty under the circumstances. See Hook v. Brown, 498 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (error to relieve shopping center/owner/manager of liability by summary judgment for tenant employee’s injury where record did not estab lish responsibility for maintenance but evidence of center/owner/manager’s undertaking past repairs was submitted); Arias v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 426 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (duty owed by landowner or occupant to licensee or invitee is to keep his property reasonably safe and protect visitors from dangers of which he is or should be aware).
Accordingly, we reverse as to defendants Nolan and Larralde and remand for further proceedings.
. A different rule is applied in "passing vehicle” cases. These are cases in which no invitee duty is involved, but rather solely the obligation of a landowner to the chance motorist injured on a public roadway while passing a landowner’s property. There, where the accident is alleged to have been caused by shrubbery growing high but remaining solely on the landowner’s property, the landowner has not been held liable for resulting damages. See Pedigo v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Evans v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981). On the other hand, where the vision of the passing‘vehicle’s driver has been obstructed by the landowner’s shrubbery growing onto the intersection, it has been held that the landowner could be liable for resulting damages. See Armas v. Metropolitan Dade County, 429 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Morales v. Costa, 427 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 434 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAY v. Myers, 614 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…t the drive-in owner could be liable because of its prior knowledge of an unusual and hazardous dangerous condition created by the manner in which the landowner used its property. McCray has also directed our attention to Garcia v. City of Hialeah, 550 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the plaintiff suffered injury while leaving the defendant’s service station when his vehicle was struck by a passing motorist. The plaintiff in Garcia alleged that his vision was obscured by shrubbery. The city, and not…
-
D'Attilio v. Fifth Ave. Bus. Ass'n, Inc., 710 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…ligation to police the roadways, the reasonableness of this conclusion involves a question of fact appropriate for determination by a jury. See Thompson, 680 So. 2d at 443 (level of custody and control are fact questions); Garcia v. City of Hialeah, 550 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) [*119] (landowner, not city, found liable for injuries to business invitee, despite the fact that the injury was caused by the city’s failure to maintain the area around the defendant’s business). This is particularly true in ligh…
-
Chavez v. McDONALD'S Rest. OF Fla., Inc., 108 So. 3d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ate Maritime Props., Inc., 631 So. 2d 375, 377 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The issue of whether a negligent condition existed on premises generally involves disputes of material fact which will preclude summary judgment.”); Garcia v. City of Hialeah, 550 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the duty of care owed includes the duty to provide reasonably safe ingress and egress). We affirm the trial court’s in li-mine ruling regarding the testimony of George Zimmerman, but note that a Frye2 hearing is not…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Evans v. S. Holding Corp. & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Armas v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 429 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Toll v. Waters, 138 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1939)
- Arias v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Lysle E. Williams, 426 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Morales v. Costa, 427 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pedigo v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hook v. Brown, 498 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)