Florida Power & Light Co. v. Estupinan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Estupinan

752 So. 2d 727, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3710, 2000 WL 313485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

DocketNos. 3D99-67, 3D99-68

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 727 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Estupinan) 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 Power & Light Co. v. Estupinan, 752 So. 2d 727, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3710, 2000 WL 313485 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Florida Power & Light Company (“FP & L”) appeals an adverse final [728]*728judgment finding it liable for injuries caused to plaintiffs John and Jack Estupi-nan (“plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident when their car was struck by another vehicle whose driver failed to yield the right-of-way. The impact spun the plaintiffs’ car off the pavement, and into an FP & L streetlight pole on the sidewalk.

The plaintiffs introduced into evidence pictures of the pole at trial. The pictures, which depict multiple nicks and dents and bruises on the pole, show that the pole had been battered quite a bit. However, contrary to the inference arguably raised by these pictures, FP&L records for the five years preceding this accident do not reveal reports of any prior injury claims against FP & L as a result of collisions with the pole.

This court has previously observed that the mere “placing or maintaining [of] a pole in close proximity to a roadway does not create a duty on the part of the utility company.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Macias, 507 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 513 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1987), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1987).

In the absence of evidence that FP & L had specific knowledge of other accidents involving the pole, the location of the pole in and of itself was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries as a matter of law. See Speigel v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 341 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Middlethon v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to deny FP & L’s motion, and we reverse and remand with directions to enter a verdict in favor of FP & L.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Florida Power & Light Company (“FP & L”) appeals an adverse final [728]*728judgment finding it liable for injuries caused to plaintiffs John and Jack Estupi-nan (“plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs were injured in a car accident when their car was struck by another vehicle whose driver failed to yield the right-of-way. The impact spun the plaintiffs’ car off the pavement, and into an FP & L streetlight pole on the sidewalk.

The plaintiffs introduced into evidence pictures of the pole at trial. The pictures, which depict multiple nicks and dents and bruises on the pole, show that the pole had been battered quite a bit. However, contrary to the inference arguably raised by these pictures, FP&L records for the five years preceding this accident do not reveal reports of any prior injury claims against FP & L as a result of collisions with the pole.

This court has previously observed that the mere “placing or maintaining [of] a pole in close proximity to a roadway does not create a duty on the part of the utility company.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Macias, 507 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, 513 So.2d 1060 (Fla.1987), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1987).

In the absence of evidence that FP & L had specific knowledge of other accidents involving the pole, the location of the pole in and of itself was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries as a matter of law. See Speigel v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 341 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Middlethon v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to deny FP & L’s motion, and we reverse and remand with directions to enter a verdict in favor of FP & L.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 727, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3710, 2000 WL 313485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-power-light-co-v-estupinan-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack