Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

473 So. 2d 22

473 So.2d 22

10 Fla.L.Weekly 1790

Linquist v. Boyd

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-07-23

Relies on 351 So. 2d 29 - Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · US Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-07-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2000

3 state decisions

10198519902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The 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.

¶2The 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).

¶3The partial summary judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

/473/so2d/22 · .json · Public domain