St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Florida Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Florida Department of Transportation

688 So. 2d 469, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1997 WL 91396

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 5, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2391

StatusPublished

This text of 688 So. 2d 469 (St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Florida Department of Transportation) 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

St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Florida Department of Transportation, 688 So. 2d 469, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1997 WL 91396 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARIENTE, Judge.

Appellant, who received injuries in an automobile accident, appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in favor of the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). We reverse because the DOT did not eonclu-sively demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged operational negligence of the DOT. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985); Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

In addition, at the time of summary judgment, discovery was still ongoing, and the facts were not so crystallized that nothing remained but questions of law. See Moore, 475 So.2d at 668; Singer v. Star, 510 So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Danna v. Bay Steel Corp., 445 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

The trial court’s granting of summary judgment was at the very least premature. See Danna, 445 So.2d at 705.

REVERSED.

GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

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