Derrer v. Paulk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Derrer v. Paulk

514 So. 2d 379, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2245, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10252

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 15, 1987·No. No. 85-2829·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Traffic Control Devices, Inc. in this negligence action is affirmed because (1) the sole claim of negligence in this case is the defendant’s alleged failure to fulfill its contractual duty to respond to all trouble calls and correct any malfunctions in a particular traffic control signal, and (2) the record affirmatively establishes, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, that the defendant fulfilled its aforesaid contractual duty, and, therefore, was not negligent in this case as a matter of law. See Wentz v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Traffic Control Devices, Inc. in this negligence action is affirmed because (1) the sole claim of negligence in this case is the defendant’s alleged failure to fulfill its contractual duty to respond to all trouble calls and correct any malfunctions in a particular traffic control signal, and (2) the record affirmatively establishes, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, that the defendant fulfilled its aforesaid contractual duty, and, therefore, was not negligent in this case as a matter of law. See Wentz v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

Derrer v. Paulk, 514 So. 2d 379, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2245, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10252 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

514 So. 2d 379 (Derrer v. Paulk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related