Florida Board of Education v. Andrews

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Board of Education v. Andrews

903 So. 2d 1048, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9361, 2005 WL 1412198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-0767

StatusPublished

This text of 903 So. 2d 1048 (Florida Board of Education v. Andrews) 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

Florida Board of Education v. Andrews, 903 So. 2d 1048, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9361, 2005 WL 1412198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Andrews was tragically killed when his car collided with a cow, owned by the University of Florida, on highway 241. The main issue at trial was whether the University’s negligence allowed the cow to get onto the highway. On the issue of negligence, the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with section 588.01, Florida Statutes, could be considered as evidence of the defendant’s negligence under section 588.15, Florida Statutes (1999). See Hanson v. Scharber, 749 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that an issue of material fact remained as to whether livestock owners had constructed an adequate fence to restrain a bull, even though the owners had complied with the fencing requirements in chapter 588); Zuppardo v. O’Hare, 487 So.2d 39, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that the fencing requirements in sections 588.01 through 588.11 “have nothing to do with the remaining sections of chapter 588, known as the Warren Act”); Davidson v. Howard, 438 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.

DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Andrews was tragically killed when his car collided with a cow, owned by the University of Florida, on highway 241. The main issue at trial was whether the University’s negligence allowed the cow to get onto the highway. On the issue of negligence, the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with section 588.01, Florida Statutes, could be considered as evidence of the defendant’s negligence under section 588.15, Florida Statutes (1999). See Hanson v. Scharber, 749 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that an issue of material fact remained as to whether livestock owners had constructed an adequate fence to restrain a bull, even though the owners had complied with the fencing requirements in chapter 588); Zuppardo v. O’Hare, 487 So.2d 39, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that the fencing requirements in sections 588.01 through 588.11 “have nothing to do with the remaining sections of chapter 588, known as the Warren Act”); Davidson v. Howard, 438 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.

DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 So. 2d 1048, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9361, 2005 WL 1412198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-board-of-education-v-andrews-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack