WILLIAM R. GALIVAN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF MARY ALICE GALIVAN AND VERONICA GALIVAN, MINORS; AND MARY GALIVAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE LOWELL DUNN COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND MILLS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a negligence complaint against two companies accused of removing a stop sign. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no error in the trial court's decision.
No, the trial court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint against the appellees. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decision.
“The appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of an order of the trial court dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice as to the appellees, The Lowell Dunn Company and Mills Engineering Company, Inc.”
Describes the procedural posture and the parties involved in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued two companies, The Lowell Dunn Company and Mills Engineering Company, Inc., alleging they removed a stop sign during construction. An …
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
The appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of an order of the trial court dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice as to the appellees, The Lowell Dunn Company and Mills Engineering Company, Inc. The action in the trial court sounded in negligence, and the cause still pends against another defendant who was the alleged active tort feasor.
The appellees were charged in the amended complaint with having removed a stop sign at an intersection while doing certain construction work, after which an automobile accident occurred between the appellants and the remaining defendant in the trial court.
We find no error in the dismissal of the appellees, The Lowell Dunn Company and Mills Engineering Company, Inc. See: Rosen v. City of Miami, 141 Fla. 664, 193 So. 749; Raven v. Coates, Fla.App.1961, 125 So.2d 770.
Therefore, the final order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alvina Ann Raven and John Raven v. Nancie Boughner Coates and David Owen Coates, 125 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Rosen v. City of Miami, 141 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1940)