ALEX STEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., INMAN, INC. AND LIMA CO., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
A motorist traveling upon the public highway is not within the class of persons sought to be protected by an ordinance regulating removal of trees and vegetation. See generally deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla.1973). In the absence of a violation of a statute, we adhere to the view that there is no common law duty on a landowner to maintain his property in a condition so that a motorist approaching a public highway intersection can see other approaching motorists. Evans v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981). Accord Pedigo v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2007)…th the exception of our holding in Whitt, there are no Florida decisions [*1062] imposing liability upon a property owner based on natural conditions contained wholly within the boundary of the private property. See Stevens v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 415 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (asserting that in the absence of a violation of a statute, a landowner does not have a duty to “maintain his property in a condition so that a motorist approaching a public highway intersection can see other approaching motor…1 / 2
-
Piedra v. City OF N. BAY Vill., 193 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ther the vegetation extended beyond the property boundaries and whether such growth created a visual hazard to those approaching the intersection such that it was a legal cause of the accident in question. See, e.g. Stevens v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 415 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (asserting that in the absence of a violation of a statute, a landowner does not have a duty to “maintain his property in a condition so that a motorist approaching a public highway intersection can see other approaching motor…
-
Ileana Whitt v. Eli Silverman, 732 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…mpose liability for a visual obstruction created by foliage growing on a landowner’s property, so long as the foliage does not protrude into the public way. See Morales v. Costa, 427 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Stevens v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 415 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Evans v. Southern Holding Corp., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Dawson v. Ridgley, 554 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Armas v. Metropolitan Dade County, 429 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). So long as the foliage remain…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
- Evans v. S. Holding Corp. & Ins. Co. of N. Am., 391 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Pedigo v. Smith, 395 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)