From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powell v. State Dept. of Transp

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 6, 1993
626 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Summary

In Powell, the plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle on an allegedly defective sidewalk, which was maintained by the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Summary of this case from Florida Power Light Co. v. Periera

Opinion

No. 92-4301.

November 1, 1993. Rehearing Denied December 6, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, Ben Gordon, J.

Michael A. Jones of Powell, Jones Reid, Niceville, for appellant.

Ray P. Pope, Pensacola, for appellee.


Samuel B. Powell (Powell) was injured while riding his motorcycle on an allegedly defective sidewalk, on August 30, 1989, in Okaloosa County. The sidewalk is maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Powell's complaint alleges that he was on the sidewalk "to give emergency assistance." The trial judge granted DOT's motion for summary judgment, holding that DOT owed no duty to Powell, and that Powell's sidewalk-riding in violation of a statute was unforeseeable. Powell appeals.

316.1995, Fla. Stat. (1989).

We agree that DOT owed no duty to Powell and therefore summary judgment was proper. "Duty" is an essential element of any negligence action; the presence or absence of duty is a legal question. See McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (duty is a "minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors"). This court has observed: "If no reasonable duty has been abrogated, no negligence can be found. A person is not required to take measures to avoid a danger which the circumstances as known to him do not suggest as likely to happen." Cassel v. Price, 396 So.2d 258, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA) (citation omitted), review denied, 407 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1981).

DOT had no duty to foresee, as likely to happen, the use of a sidewalk by a motorcyclist. The trial judge correctly determined that because DOT owed no duty to make sidewalks safe for motorcycle traffic, no cause of action existed as a matter of law.

We therefore affirm the trial court.

SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Powell v. State Dept. of Transp

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 6, 1993
626 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

In Powell, the plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle on an allegedly defective sidewalk, which was maintained by the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Summary of this case from Florida Power Light Co. v. Periera

In Powell plaintiff sued the DOT as a result of being injured while riding his motorcycle on a defective sidewalk maintained by the DOT. Citing the same statute as is involved in this case, section 316.1995 Florida Statutes (1987), which prohibits motorized vehicles on bike paths or sidewalks, the first district affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the DOT, stating that the DOT "owed no duty to make sidewalks safe for motorcycle traffic."

Summary of this case from Periera v. Florida Power Light Co.
Case details for

Powell v. State Dept. of Transp

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL B. POWELL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 6, 1993

Citations

626 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Florida Power Light Co. v. Periera

HARDING, Justice. We have for review the decision in Periera v. Florida Power Light Co., 680 So.2d 617 (Fla.…

Periera v. Florida Power Light Co.

The trial court did not, therefore, err in refusing to continue the summary judgment hearing. In concluding…