STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT M. COOPER, JR., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004)…affirming final judgment against the City for its failure to follow the protocols provided for in the traffic control devices manual which the City had adopted as the standard for signalization and street markings); State Dep’t of Transp. v. Cooper, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (same). Based on the foregoing, we determine that FHP had no special duty either to maintain the road on which this horrible accident occurred, or to dispatch officers in response to the emergency call. Importantly, we note that…
-
The City OF Jacksonville v. DeRAY, 418 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ons. Cf. Payne v. Palm Beach County, 395 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (duty to warn met with placement of signs meeting more than minimal requirements of “State Manual for Traffic Control Devices’’); State, Department of Transportation v. Cooper, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (accident caused by absence of stop ahead sign dictated by “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” adopted by DOT). For example, under “General Provisions” in the Manual it is provided that the word “…
-
Scott v. State, 439 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…cessity of the presence of defendant. Such instances usually involve mechanical recalculations of credit time. See Williamson v. United States, 265 F. 2d 236 (5th Cir.1959); Bruner v. State, 398 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) and Matthews v. State, 408 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We also note that under federal practice a defendant’s presence is not required at a reduction of his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(c)(4). Since it would be dicta, we decline to set forth our views as to…
Authorities Cited
- Berek v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 396 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Napolean Hosea Yant, 360 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- State v. Knowles, 388 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)