Batista v. City of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Batista v. City of Miami

780 So. 2d 335, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 2001 WL 293193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2001

DocketNo. 3D99-3183

StatusPublished

This text of 780 So. 2d 335 (Batista v. City of Miami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Batista v. City of Miami, 780 So. 2d 335, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 2001 WL 293193 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Martinez v. Florida Power & Light Co., 26 Fla. L. Weekly D297, — So.2d -, 2001 WL 55387 (Fla. 3d DCA [336]*336Jan.24, 2001). See also Wright v. Metro. Dade County, 547 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (comity not liable for injuries sustained in collision where traffic light malfunctioned); Pope v. Cruise Boat Company, Inc., 380 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“The law is well settled in this state that a remote condition or conduct which furnishes only the occasion for someone else’s supervening negligence is not a proximate cause of the result of the subsequent negligence.”)); and see H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896 (1928) (cited in Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co., 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (action against city for failure to supply adequate water pressure to prevent spread of fire, not maintainable as one for breach of statutory duty.)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Martinez v. Florida Power & Light Co., 26 Fla. L. Weekly D297, — So.2d -, 2001 WL 55387 (Fla. 3d DCA [336]*336Jan.24, 2001). See also Wright v. Metro. Dade County, 547 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (comity not liable for injuries sustained in collision where traffic light malfunctioned); Pope v. Cruise Boat Company, Inc., 380 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“The law is well settled in this state that a remote condition or conduct which furnishes only the occasion for someone else’s supervening negligence is not a proximate cause of the result of the subsequent negligence.”)); and see H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896 (1928) (cited in Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co., 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (action against city for failure to supply adequate water pressure to prevent spread of fire, not maintainable as one for breach of statutory duty.)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

780 So. 2d 335, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4007, 2001 WL 293193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batista-v-city-of-miami-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack