State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper

408 So. 2d 781, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18976

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1082

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 408 So. 2d 781 (State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper) 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

State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper, 408 So. 2d 781, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18976 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

The final judgment against appellant, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), is affirmed. There was evidence that the intersection accident was caused in part by the absence of a stop-ahead sign which was dictated by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways adopted by appellant and which was even included in appellant’s construction drawings. The trial court’s award of costs and post judgment interest was correct under our decision in State Department of Transportation v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), which followed State Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 892 (Fla.1978), and we decline to recede from Knowles notwithstanding the conflicting opinion in Berek v. Metropolitan Dade County, 396 So.2d 756 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). The remaining points raised by the DOT have been considered and are also without merit.

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

The final judgment against appellant, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), is affirmed. There was evidence that the intersection accident was caused in part by the absence of a stop-ahead sign which was dictated by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways adopted by appellant and which was even included in appellant’s construction drawings. The trial court’s award of costs and post judgment interest was correct under our decision in State Department of Transportation v. Knowles, 388 So.2d 1045 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), which followed State Board of Regents v. Yant, 360 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 892 (Fla.1978), and we decline to recede from Knowles notwithstanding the conflicting opinion in Berek v. Metropolitan Dade County, 396 So.2d 756 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). The remaining points raised by the DOT have been considered and are also without merit.

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 So. 2d 781, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-transportation-v-cooper-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack