PROCTOR & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, AND GENERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BONNIE MCGLAMERY, 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.
In this negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the appellate court affirmed a summary judgment on liability against the defendant driver, who turned left across multiple lanes of traffic on a divided highway without adequately checking for oncoming traffic in the rightmost lane. The court emphasized that the affirmance applies only to the issue of the defendant's negligence and does not preclude consideration of comparative negligence principles.
The trial court's summary judgment as to the defendant's negligence was affirmed. However, the court clarified that this affirmance does not preclude consideration of the plaintiff's comparative negligence if that issue was properly raised in the trial court.
[1] A driver making a left turn may be found negligent when their view of oncoming traffic is obstructed and they proceed after being waved on by another driver.
[2] A trial court's grant of summary judgment on liability in a negligence action can be affirmed even if the issue of comparative negligence was not properly presented in th…
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“This affirmance is not to be construed as passing any judgment on the negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff.”
Clarifies that the summary judgment and affirmance address only the defendant's negligence and do not preclude consideration of comparative negligence by the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA driver employed by Proctor & Gamble was traveling south in the left-turn lane on U.S. 441 in Hollywood, Florida, and stopped to turn left into a Tre…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Chief Judge.
The appellants, defendants in the trial court, seek review of an order of the trial court granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in a negligence action.
The instant action arose from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on U.S. 441 in Hollywood, Florida. At the point of the accident, U.S. 441 had three southbound lanes, the centermost southbound lane being a left-turn lane. There are three northbound lanes, with the extreme outside one being a right-turn lane. The north and southbound lanes are separated by a double yellow line painted on the roadway. To the east of the roadway is a shopping complex, including therein a Treasury store, a post office, and a gasoline station. There are driveway entrances into those establishments located to the east of the outside northbound lane.
On the day in question, one Murphins [who was the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant, Proctor & Gamble, but who is not a party herein] was driving south in the left-turn lane on U.S. 441; he stopped to make a left turn into the Treasury store. There was considerable traffic in the two inside northbound lanes, which was stopped. A panel truck in the middle northbound lane blocked his view of traffic proceeding north on the eastern northbound lane. The driver in the centermost northbound lane was stopped and waved Murphins on and he executed his turn. Upon crossing the two centermost northbound lanes and entering the right-turn lane, he was struck by the appellee’s vehi- ele. As a result of this-accident, the plaintiff brought the instant' suit. Issue was joined and extensive discovery was completed. Thereupon, the appellee moved for a summary judgment as to liability. After hearing on the motion, the trial court entered the order appealed.
We affirm. See: Cash v. Gates, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 838; Tranter v. Wible, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 595; MacNeill v. Neal, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 263; Walters v. McQueen, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 34. This affirmance is not to be construed as passing any judgment on the negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant’s answers were not a part of the record in this case and, therefore, we are unable to determine if an issue of comparative negligence was properly presented in the trial court. If it was, then the negligence, if any, of the plaintiff remains to be considered in making any ultimate award. Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So. 2d 431.
This opinion is to be construed only as affirming the trial court’s holding that the defendant was negligent.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
This court having granted a petition for rehearing in this cause and heard further argument, it appears that the court overlooked the answer filed by the defendants, which raised the question of comparative negligence. The court also overlooked its decision in Cunningham v. Romano, 278 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). Following review of the Cunningham decision, it appears to be analogous to the instant case and, therefore, we reverse the summary judgment here under review and return the matter to the trial court for a full trial on the issues as to the negligence of each of the parties as made by the pleadings.
In Cunningham v. Romano, supra, the following statement is found at page 633:
iji jjc sjt jfc 5¡(« ?}i ;jc ‡ ‡ ;¡c
Therefore, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, and the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vitro Am., Inc. v. Ngo, 304 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
Billee C. Holliman v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 349 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…that case is not applicable herein, where there was no such allegation. We reverse as to Nelson and the City of North Miami Beach, under the holding in Cunningham v. Romano, 278 So. 2d 631 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Proctor & Gamble Dist. Co. v. McGlamery, 341 So. 2d 521 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings between the plaintiff and the defendants, City of North Miami Beach and Nelson. Reversed and remanded, with directions.…
-
ST. Martin v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Edith Rosenblatt, 367 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ot conclusively establish either the non-existence of any genuine issue concerning the driver’s negligence and legal cause, or that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. v. McGlamery, 341 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Cunningham v. Romano, 278 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 19 (Fla.1973); Basden v. Lowery, 182 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Since the case is governed by the principle of comparative negligence, our dete…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Cash v. Harriette A. Gates and Harley D. Gates, 151 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Ellsworth R. MacNEILL & Guardian-Union Grp. of Ins. Cos. v. Neal, 253 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Cunningham v. Romano, 278 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Tranter v. Noble Hume Wible, 191 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Quinton O. Walters v. McQUEEN, 292 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)