VERA FORCIER, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, 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.
Vera Forcier sued the City of St. Petersburg for injuries sustained in a fall on a sidewalk, claiming the City had a duty to maintain it. The City obtained summary judgment based on an affidavit asserting that the Department of Transportation maintained the sidewalk as State Road 687. The appellate court reversed, holding that the City's affidavit was insufficient to establish responsibility as a matter of law.
The affidavit was insufficient to resolve the maintenance responsibility in the City's favor as a matter of law. Unless both governmental entities can stipulate which is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk, both must be joined in the lawsuit to prevent conflicting judgments.
[1] A municipality's affidavit asserting that a state department maintains a sidewalk adjacent to a state road is insufficient to support summary judgment if the affidavit do…
[2] Summary judgment is improper when the maintenance responsibility for a sidewalk between a municipality and a state department remains unclear.
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 City's affidavit is insufficient to resolve this issue in its favor as a matter of law.”
Establishes the core holding that mere assertion by one governmental entity, without formal documentation or corroboration, cannot establish maintenance responsibility on summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 20, 1995, Ms. Forcier tripped and fell on a sidewalk adjacent to 4th Street North near its intersection with 2nd Avenue. She sued the City…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Vera Forcier appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Peters-burg. We reverse.
Ms. Forcier sued the City, alleging that on December 20, 1995, she tripped and fell on a sidewalk adjacent to 4th Street North. She claimed that the sidewalk was in disrepair and that the City had a duty to maintain it. Discovery revealed that the accident occurred near the intersection of 4th Street North and 2nd Avenue. As a result, the City filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the relevant portion of 4th Street North is maintained by the Department of Transportation as State Road 687. In support of the motion, the City did not file an affidavit from the Department of Transportation acknowl edging its obligation to maintain the sidewalk at issue, but instead filed an affidavit of the City’s Assistant Director of Engineering stating that “based upon established Department of Transportation policy,” the sidewalk was maintained by the Department and not the City. The City filed no formal documents establishing a transfer of responsibility from the City to the Department, although it is likely that such documentation exists. See generally § 335.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).
Ms. Forcier maintained that the City’s affidavit was insufficient to permit the entry of a summary judgment. The trial court disagreed and entered an order granting summary judgment. Before the trial court entered a final summary judgment, Ms. Forcier filed a motion for relief from the order along with a letter from the Department declining to admit responsibility for the specific section of sidewalk.
We are inclined 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 issue in its favor as a matter of law. Unless both governmental entities can stipulate that one of them is responsible to maintain this portion of the sidewalk, it will be necessary for both entities to be joined in the lawsuit. Otherwise, Ms. Forcier could fall again — this time in the gap between the conflicting judgments entered in two separate lawsuits.
Reversed and remanded.
GREEN and SALCINES, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Munoz v. City OF Miami, 853 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…e appellants that with no government agency admitting its responsibility to maintain the sidewalk at issue, the decision to bring DOT into, and to keep DOT in, the case did not justify the award of 57.105 fees. See Forcier v. City of St. Petersburg, 732 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(observing that a city’s affidavit denying liability was insufficient to resolve issue as a matter of law, and concluding “[ujnless both governmental entities can stipulate that one of them is responsible to maintain this porti…
Authorities Cited
- Caurant v. City OF Punta Gorda, 501 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)