MELISSA JOYNER, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDERSON COLUMBIA, CO., INC., A FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION, AND COLUMBIA COUNTY, 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.
Appellant challenges summary judgment in a negligence case arising from a single-vehicle fatal accident at a construction intersection. The court reversed, holding that conflicting evidence regarding stop sign placement and visibility created genuine issues of material fact that should have been submitted to a jury rather than resolved on summary judgment.
The court held that the evidence permitted different reasonable inferences regarding whether the stop sign was broken, too low, and placed too far from the road, and whether it was clearly visible. Because the facts permitted different reasonable inferences that tended to prove the negligence issue, summary judgment was improper and the cases should have been submitted to the jury.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when the evidence permits different reasonable inferences regarding the placement and visibility of a stop sign.
[2] Conflicting evidence regarding the placement and condition of a stop sign at an intersection undergoing construction requires submission to a jury.
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“Because the facts permitted different reasonable inferences, and the inferences reached tended to prove the issue, the cases should have been submitted to the jury.”
Establishes the governing legal standard that summary judgment is improper when evidence permits different reasonable inferences on material facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo single-vehicle fatal accidents occurred at the same intersection within 12 hours during construction. The stop sign post was broken off at the bot…
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 Reasonable Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in her negligence case. Because we conclude the evidence permitted different reasonable inferences, we reverse.
This case involves a single vehicle accident, which resulted in death. It was tried with another case, which also involved a single vehicle accident resulting in death. Both accidents occurred at the same intersection within a 12 hour period. The intersection was undergoing construction. At issue was whether the stop sign placement at the intersection was proper. The facts common to both cases show the stop sign post was broken off at the bottom, and had been placed back in the ground. Although the post was replaced after the second accident, it was unknown as to whether the sign was broken before the first accident, and it was clearly broken at the time of the second accident. The broken post made the stop sign too low and its low height was a reason to replace the sign. The stop sign was replaced three times over the weekend the accidents occurred. There was evidence that at the time of the first accident, the stop sign was placed approximately 8 feet from the side of the road, and evidence that at the time of the second accident, the sign was placed 18 feet from the side of the road. The common evidence was that the sign had never been moved from its original location.
The trial court entered summary judgment, concluding the stop sign was properly placed and clearly visible at the time of both accidents, and there was no evidence of negligence. However, to reach its conclusions, the trial court had to weigh the evidence and make inferences.
Clearly, from the evidence presented, it could be inferred that the sign was broken, was too low, and was placed too far (18 feet) from the side of the road at the time of both accidents. It could also be inferred that the stop sign, being too low and too far, was not clearly visible.
Because the facts permitted different reasonable inferences, and the inferences reached tended to prove the issue, the cases should have been submitted to the jury. See Spears v. Albertson’s, Inc., 848 So. 2d 1176, 1177-1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law); Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000) (noting if the evidence is conflicting, will permit different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact). The trial court erred as a matter of law by granting summary judgment. The order granting summary judgment is REVERSED.
BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Eckerd Drugs and AIG, 987 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…Inc., 848 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). If the evidence is conflicting, will permit different reasonable inferences, or tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the trier of fact. See generally Joyner v. Anderson Columbia, Co., Inc., 988 So. 2d 60, 60-61, 2008 WL 2695138, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d at 130; Schneider v. City of Jacksonville, 933 So,2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “As a general rule, piecemeal litigation of mature claims is no more p…
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Spears v. Albertson's, Inc., 848 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)