WILLIAM G. DICKIE AND BARBARA J. HARDWICK, APPELLANTS,
v.
WOOD-HOPKINS CONTRACTING COMPANY AND PLOOF TRANSFER COMPANY, INC., 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for bulkhead contractors, holding they owed no duty to warn vessel operators of an unlighted bulkhead located outside the marked federal channel where no permits or specifications required warning devices.
Bulkhead contractors owed no duty to place lights or warning signals on a bulkhead located outside the established federal channel where permits and specifications did not require such devices.
[1] A property owner and contractor owe no duty to place warning lights on a bulkhead located outside the established federal channel where applicable permits and specificati…
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 intelligenceAppellants operated a vessel that struck a bulkhead owned and constructed by appellees. The bulkhead was located outside the established federal bulkh…
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 Regulatory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.
We do not feel it necessary to set out all the facts leading up to this appeal. In short, appellants claim that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment and holding as a matter of law that appel-lees, as owner and contractor of a bulkhead, breached no duty to appellants, the operator and occupant of a vessel, when they failed to place lights or warning signals on the bulkhead.
The evidence before the trial judge conclusively established that the bulkhead was not channelward of the established federal bulkhead line; the channel itself was clearly marked and lighted; appellants were traveling well outside the channel into the area occupied by the bulkhead; all necessary permits and specifications had been secured and approved by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Jacksonville; and neither the specifications, plans nor permits required any lighting or other warning devices on the construction. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in appellees’ behalf and holding as a matter of law that appellees violated no duty owed to either of the appellants.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J. and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickie v. Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co., 248 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 245 So. 2d 663. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.…
-
Dickie v. Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co., 248 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 245 So. 2d 663. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.…