Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

530 So. 2d 1083, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2147, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4060, 1988 WL 93741

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1988

DocketNo. 88-557

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 530 So. 2d 1083 (Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.) 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

Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 530 So. 2d 1083, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2147, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4060, 1988 WL 93741 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant Coca Cola’s truck driver, who was .'stopped at an intersection, signaled to a car in which the plaintiff was a passenger to make a left turn in front of him. The car did so and was thereupon struck by another auto traveling in the lane to the right of the Coca Cola truck. While the facts closely resemble those in Kerfoot v. Waychoff, 501 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), in which a directed verdict for the signaling driver was affirmed, we nevertheless reverse the summary judgment entered below for Coca Cola on that authority.

In our view, the defendant has failed affirmatively to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues (a) as to the apparent meaning and appropriate interpretation of the signal and (b) whether the Coca Cola driver, seated high above the road in a truck presumably equipped with the right-hand rear mirror required by law, see § 316.302, Fla.Stat. (1987); 49 C.F.R. § 393.80 (1988),¹ was in a “position to determine if the adjacent lane was clear of motor vehicles.” See Kerfoot, 501 So.2d at 589. The Kerfoot decision, which acknowledges that signaling driver cases may well involve questions of fact rather than law, recognizes that both of these factors are pertinent in making the ultimate determination of whether the signaler was actionably negligent. See Massingale v. Sibley, 449 So.2d 98 (La.App.1984) (cited by Kerfoot, 501 So.2d at 590).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant Coca Cola’s truck driver, who was .'stopped at an intersection, signaled to a car in which the plaintiff was a passenger to make a left turn in front of him. The car did so and was thereupon struck by another auto traveling in the lane to the right of the Coca Cola truck. While the facts closely resemble those in Kerfoot v. Waychoff, 501 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), in which a directed verdict for the signaling driver was affirmed, we nevertheless reverse the summary judgment entered below for Coca Cola on that authority.

In our view, the defendant has failed affirmatively to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues (a) as to the apparent meaning and appropriate interpretation of the signal and (b) whether the Coca Cola driver, seated high above the road in a truck presumably equipped with the right-hand rear mirror required by law, see § 316.302, Fla.Stat. (1987); 49 C.F.R. § 393.80 (1988),¹ was in a “position to determine if the adjacent lane was clear of motor vehicles.” See Kerfoot, 501 So.2d at 589. The Kerfoot decision, which acknowledges that signaling driver cases may well involve questions of fact rather than law, recognizes that both of these factors are pertinent in making the ultimate determination of whether the signaler was actionably negligent. See Massingale v. Sibley, 449 So.2d 98 (La.App.1984) (cited by Kerfoot, 501 So.2d at 590).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 1083, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2147, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4060, 1988 WL 93741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tellechea-v-coca-cola-bottling-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack