NATALIE SHEPHARD, APPELLANT,
v.
AZZARELLI CONSTRUCTION CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Natalie Shephard appealed a summary judgment in favor of Azzarelli Construction Co. after she was injured in a traffic collision. She sued the construction company alleging its parked trucks blocked her vision of the intersection, but the court affirmed the summary judgment because the trucks' location was lawful and any alleged negligence had no proximate causal connection to the accident.
The court affirmed the summary judgment because the defendant's trucks were lawfully positioned and any negligence in maintaining the vehicles had no proximate causal connection to the accident, which would have occurred identically had the trucks been properly parked in the same location.
[1] A defendant's negligence is not actionable if it was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
[2] A defendant's vehicles stopped in a turn lane, even if broken down, do not proximately cause an accident if the accident would have occurred in the same manner had the ve…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“she adequately preserved below the applicability of the comparative negligence doctrine, and thus that she is not barred by her clearly-established contributory negligence”
The court recognized that the plaintiff met the requirements of comparative negligence doctrine under Hoffman v. Jones and could not be barred from recovery solely on contributory negligence grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShephard attempted to make a left turn on a green light when her vehicle was struck by a car coming from the opposite direction. She sued Azzarelli Co…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.
The plaintiff, Natalie Shephard, appeals from a final summary judgment entered against her below. She was injured when, while attempting to make a left turn on a green light on a busy Tampa boulevard, her vehicle was struck by a car proceeding on a direct course from the opposite direction. In this action, she sued, not the driver of that automobile, but rather the Azza-relli Construction Co., the owner of two trucks, one of which had broken down, and both of which were stopped, unmoving, in the left turn lane opposite and across the intersection from her. Ms. Shephard contended that these vehicles had blocked her vision of the intersection and specifically of the car into which she turned and with which she collided.
Although we agree with the appellant that under the criteria stated in Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So. 2d 431, she adequately preserved below the applicability of the comparative negligence doctrine, and thus that she is not barred by her clearly-established contributory negligence, we nonetheless affirm the summary judgment below. We do so because it was conclusively established that the location of the defendant’s vehicles was not itself improper and, therefore, that the arguably negligent act of permitting the truck to fall into disrepair had nothing whatever, “proximate” or otherwise, to do with the occurrence of the accident, which would have occurred in precisely the same way had the trucks merely been stopped waiting to make a left turn from their proper location in the intersection. Both Sims v. Apperson Chemicals, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 179, and Smith v. Johnson, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 178, directly apply and compel af-firmance.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gine v. Hobbs, 409 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…la. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Pope v. Cruise Boat Co., 380 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Holliman v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 349 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Shephard v. Azzarelli Construction Co., 294 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).…
-
Billee C. Holliman v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 349 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…t: whether or not Southern Bell was negligent in placing the van in a position where it blocked the vision of the drivers and thus contributed to the cause of the accident. We affirm as to Southern Bell. See: Shephard v. Azzarelli Construction Co., 294 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). In reviewing Wilfork v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., 343 So. 2d 84 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cited by the appellant, it appears there was an allegation the vehicle was illegally parked. Thus, that case is not applicable herein, w…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Sims v. Apperson Chems., Inc., 185 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Smith v. Johnson, 282 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)