Brinkley v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brinkley v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

353 So. 2d 593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 353 So. 2d 593 (Brinkley v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.) 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

Brinkley v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 353 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

NATHAN, Judge.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, in a personal injury action stemming from an accident in which the telephone booth owned by the defendant, and occupied by the plaintiff, John Brinkley, located in a shopping center parking lot, was struck by an automobile. The automobile was owned by a third party, and the driver was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident.

We have examined the record on appeal, and have concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact in this case which are triable by jury, including foreseeability; the negligence of Southern Bell; and whether the actions of the driver of the automobile constituted an independent intervening cause. See Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977). Defendant not having been entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the summary final judgment is, therefore,

Reversed.

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

NATHAN, Judge.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, in a personal injury action stemming from an accident in which the telephone booth owned by the defendant, and occupied by the plaintiff, John Brinkley, located in a shopping center parking lot, was struck by an automobile. The automobile was owned by a third party, and the driver was allegedly drunk at the time of the accident.

We have examined the record on appeal, and have concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact in this case which are triable by jury, including foreseeability; the negligence of Southern Bell; and whether the actions of the driver of the automobile constituted an independent intervening cause. See Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977). Defendant not having been entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the summary final judgment is, therefore,

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 So. 2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkley-v-southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-co-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack