Linquist v. Boyd

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Linquist v. Boyd

473 So. 2d 22, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14447

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1985

DocketNo. 85-820

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 22 (Linquist v. Boyd) 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

Linquist v. Boyd, 473 So. 2d 22, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14447 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Tom P. Linquist appeals a partial summary judgment on liability entered below in favor of the plaintiffs Mark and Sharon Boyd in a negligence action arising out of an automobile/motorcycle accident. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The evidence is undisputed that the defendant Linquist was negligent in driving his automobile into a street intersection, in an effort to make a right-hand turn, because he failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff Mark Boyd who was operating a motorcycle on a through street. The accident occurred in the intersection when the plaintiff Boyd drove, without braking, directly into the driver’s side of the defendant’s automobile. By his own estimate, the plaintiff Boyd was travelling a little over 30 mph in a 40 mph zone during a driving rainstorm which he described as a “wall” of water. His actual speed may have been even faster in view of the fact that the defendant Linquist’s automobile was “to-talled” as a result of the accident. Under these circumstances, we think that a genuine issue of material fact arose as to whether the plaintiff Boyd was comparatively negligent in this accident by travelling at an excessive rate of speed for existing weather conditions and in failing to keep a proper lookout. A partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability was therefore inappropriate. See Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29, 30-31 (Fla.1977); U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 362 So.2d 414, 416-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

The partial summary judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Tom P. Linquist appeals a partial summary judgment on liability entered below in favor of the plaintiffs Mark and Sharon Boyd in a negligence action arising out of an automobile/motorcycle accident. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The evidence is undisputed that the defendant Linquist was negligent in driving his automobile into a street intersection, in an effort to make a right-hand turn, because he failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff Mark Boyd who was operating a motorcycle on a through street. The accident occurred in the intersection when the plaintiff Boyd drove, without braking, directly into the driver’s side of the defendant’s automobile. By his own estimate, the plaintiff Boyd was travelling a little over 30 mph in a 40 mph zone during a driving rainstorm which he described as a “wall” of water. His actual speed may have been even faster in view of the fact that the defendant Linquist’s automobile was “to-talled” as a result of the accident. Under these circumstances, we think that a genuine issue of material fact arose as to whether the plaintiff Boyd was comparatively negligent in this accident by travelling at an excessive rate of speed for existing weather conditions and in failing to keep a proper lookout. A partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability was therefore inappropriate. See Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29, 30-31 (Fla.1977); U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 362 So.2d 414, 416-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

The partial summary judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 22, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linquist-v-boyd-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack