J. L. HOBBY, AS SHERIFF OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT
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.
This case clarifies the applicability of Florida Statutes regarding authorized emergency vehicles. The court determined that a specific statute concerning vehicle operation does not apply to emergency vehicles on municipal streets that are not part of the state or county highway systems.
No, Florida Statute Section 317.041(5) does not apply to the operation of an "authorized emergency vehicle" by a deputy sheriff on a municipal street that is not part of the state or county highway system when responding to an emergency call.
“Does Section 317.041(5), Florida Statutes, 1965, apply to the operation by a deputy sheriff of an ‘authorized emergency vehicle’ as that term in defined in Section 317.011(1), Florida Statutes, 1965, when responding to an emergency call, upon a street located within a municipal corporation and which street is not a part of the state-maintained highway system, is not a part of the county-maintained highway system, and is not a state-maintained municipal connecting link road as defined in Section 335.05(1), Florida Statutes, 1965 ?”
This is the certified question presented to the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA deputy sheriff operated an "authorized emergency vehicle" within a municipality in response to an emergency call. The street where the operation occ…
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 Legislative Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The opinion filed June 26, 1968, wherein we rejected the certified question, is now withdrawn and the following is made the opinion of the court.
The following question has been certified to this court under F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S. A.:
“Does Section 317.041(5), Florida Statutes, 1965, apply to the operation by a deputy sheriff of an ‘authorized emergency vehicle’ as that term in defined in Section 317.011(1), Florida Statutes, 1965, when responding to an emergency call, upon a street located within a municipal corporation and which street is not a part of the state-maintained highway system, is not a part of the county-maintained highway system, and is not a state-maintained municipal connecting link road as defined in Section 335.05(1), Florida Statutes, 1965 ?”
F.S. Section 317.041(1), F.S.A.1965, provides that all of Chapter 317, F.S., relating to the operation of vehicles (with the exception of Sections 317.071-317.211) refers to the operation of vehicles upon the state-maintained highway system and county-maintained highway system throughout the state, including state-maintained municipal connecting link roads as defined in Section 335.05(1), and that the provisions of Sections 317.071-317.211 shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the state. It is clearly the legislative intent that F.S. Sections 317.071-317.211, F.S.A., apply to the operation of vehicles anywhere within the state, but that all other portions of Chapter 317, F.S.A., apply only to the operation of vehicles upon a road or highway which is either a part of the state-maintained highway system, including state-maintained municipal connecting link roads as defined in Section 335.05(1), or a part of the county-maintained highway system. The question as certified was worded so as to expressly *124exclude either of these categories as the place of operation of the “authorized emergency vehicle.” The question certified is answered in the negative.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., and WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 254 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…-maintained municipal connecting link roads as defined in F.S.1969, Section 335.05(1), F.S.A.) or on a county-maintained highway system. See F.S.1969, Section 317.041, F.S.A., and Hobby v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 123. Thus, here again questions of fact are presented which cannot be determined simply by reference to the traffic tickets. F.S.1970, Section 932.61, F.S.A., relied upon by the petitioners, provides in pertinent part as follows: “A person charged in…
-
Rogers v. Luevenia Myers, 240 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…ions relating to regulation of traffic on highways are not applicable to traffic on municipal streets unless such streets are state maintained municipal connecting links. A like ruling was made by the court in Hobby v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 217 So. 2d 123 (Fla.App.1969). Appellee contends that while the instruction is the exact language from the statute, it was really a municipal ordinance which formed the basis of the instruction. However, appellee fails to point to the specific municipal ordinance…