REYNA ENCARNACION TELLECHEA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A passenger in a car was injured after the vehicle was struck by another auto following a left turn signal given by a Coca Cola truck driver. The court reversed summary judgment for Coca Cola, holding that genuine issues of fact exist regarding whether the truck driver could see the adjacent lane and the proper interpretation of the signal.
Summary judgment was improper because the defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of fact concerning both the interpretation of the signal and whether the truck driver could determine that the adjacent lane was clear, making these questions for the jury rather than matters of law.
[1] A summary judgment for a signaling driver is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the meaning of the signal and whether the driver was in a posit…
[2] The determination of whether a signaling driver was actionably negligent may involve questions of fact, not solely questions of law.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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, was in a "position to determine if the adjacent lane was clear of motor vehicles."”
The core holding explaining why summary judgment was inappropriate and the specific factual issues that must be resolved by the jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Coca Cola truck driver stopped at an intersection signaled to a car containing the plaintiff to make a left turn in front of him. The car proceeded …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
. § 393.80 Rear-vision mirrors.
Every bus, truck, and truck tractor shall be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eleonora Bianca Roos v. Morrison, 913 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…the case regarding the criteria necessary for holding the signaling driver liable for damages resulting from a collision between the vehicle to which the signal was given and another motorist. See Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The Third District in Tellechea identified the material criteria for determining liability, at issue in that case, as (1) “the apparent meaning and appropriate interpretation of the signal,” and (2) “whether the Coca Cola driver,…
-
WED Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Beauchamp, 616 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…g vehicles clearly within his immediate field of view in front of him prior to the accident. No accident vehicle overtook the signaling driver from the rear. In my view, appellees’ reliance on Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988), is misplaced. While it may be argued that the position of a truck driver or in the instant case, a bus driver, seated high above the road with side rear view mirrors puts the truck driver in a superior position to ascertain whet…1 / 2
-
Priester v. Ratlieff, 572 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…by the trial court in concluding that the issue as to the cause of the accident in question should be decided by the jury in light of all the circumstances shown to have prevailed at the time. See Tellechea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 530 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., and FENNELLY, JOHN E., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kerfoot v. Waychoff, 501 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1987)