JAMES J. BURNS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE PAVING CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MIKE HUNTER, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ADVANCE BARRICADES AND SIGNING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JANET APETZ F/K/A JANET WADE, 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.
Reversed summary judgment for subcontractor Mike Hunter, Inc. where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the subcontractor had a duty to repair a damaged guardrail under the construction contract.
Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether a subcontractor had a duty to repair a damaged guardrail, precluding summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when conflicting evidence exists regarding a subcontractor's scope of work and duty to repair under a construction contract.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was injured when a vehicle struck an exposed guardrail on State Road 820 that had been damaged in a previous accident. The Florida Departmen…
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 Duty To Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant suffered personal injuries when a vehicle in which he was a passenger struck the exposed end of a guardrail located on State Road 820 under the Florida Turnpike overpass. The guardrail had been damaged by a previous accident. The Florida Department of Transportation had an ongoing contraction project to widen the turnpike at this location. The general contractor, State Paving Corporation, employed appellee, Mike Hunter, Inc., as a subcontractor for repair work on the turnpike’s guardrails. Appellant filed suit and alleged, among other things, that Mike Hunter, Inc. had negligently failed to maintain or repair the subject guardrail. Appel-lee moved for summary judgment and offered testimony that the guardrail was not within the scope of its work on the project and therefore it had no duty to effectuate the repair. Appellant offered conflicting evidence by an expert who, after a review of the contracts, depositions and project files, testified that appellee did have a duty to repair the damaged guardrail. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mike Hunter, Inc. We hold that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the scope of appellee’s work and appellee’s duties under the construction project. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardner v. Edward W. Holifield, M.D., 639 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…idence concerning the scope of services provided by the FAMU Health Center and the adequacy of Dr. Holifield’s cardiologic care for Roosevelt Gardner. See § 90.702, Fla.Stat. (1991); Burns v. Florida Department of Transportation, State Paving Corp., 559 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (Expert who reviewed contracts, depositions and project files testified to scope of subcontractor’s work under contract). In light of the foregoing, it is obviously not necessary for us to reach the issue of whether the trial co…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)