Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 72533,72533 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 200 Edward ARENADO, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Direct Conflict of Decisions Fourth District--Case No. 4-86-2970 (Palm Beach County).
Richard A. Kupfer of Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth, Romano, Eriksen & Kupfer, P.A., and Mark Postelnek, Miami Beach, for petitioner.
James R. Cole of Sellars, Supran, Cole, Marion & Espy, and Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Alan C. Sundberg, Sylvia H. Walbolt and F. Townsend Hawkes of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, amici curiae for Florida Power Corp., Tampa Elec. Co. and Gulf Power Co.
John H. Haswell and William H. Chandler of Chandler, Gray, Lang, Haswell & Enwall, P.A., Gainesville, amicus curiae for Florida Rural Elec. Co-op. Assn.
James J. Taylor, Jacksonville, William R. Holzapfel and Ruth A. Bosek, Newark, N.J., and Dennis P. Harkawik of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City, amicus curiae for Edison Elec. Institute.
Wendy F. Lumish and Lynn A. Epstein of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Wechsler, Miami, amicus curiae for Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
We accepted jurisdiction in this cause, Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Company, 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), because of perceived conflict with Mugge v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 52 Fla. 371, 42 So. 81 (1906), and Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 243, 49 So. 556 (1909). Upon further review and analysis we now determine that we should decline review because, in fact, there is no conflict.
The issue decided by the district court in this case was whether or not an electric power company (Florida Power & Light Company) owes a duty to a noncustomer which would allow the noncustomer to maintain an action for damages suffered as a result of an automobile accident occurring in an intersection collision because the traffic signal was inoperative due to the alleged negligence of the power company. The district court of appeal answered the question in the negative. Insofar as we can determine, the question of whether a duty is owed to a noncustomer for failure to supply electricity is a case of first impression. 1
Both Mugge and Woodbury are factually distinguishable from this case. In Mugge Tampa Waterworks entered into a contract with the City of Tampa. The contract granted it the franchise and right to lay pipes and erect fountains and other structures as well as the exclusive privilege to construct and operate the city's waterworks for thirty years. An individual whose property was destroyed by fire because of insufficient water pressure sued the waterworks.
It was alleged in Mugge that the contract between Tampa Waterworks Company and the City of Tampa contained the right on the part of waterworks company to have sufficient taxes levied and collected annually on all taxable property in the city to pay for hydrant rentals for public fire service. The complaint also alleged that a special tax could be levied and collected for such purposes and that the proceeds were to be kept as a separate fund to be devoted exclusively to hydrant rentals. This special tax for hydrant rentals had been levied annually, collected and paid to the defendant company. It was also specifically alleged that the principal and primary consideration for grant of the franchises and rights to the defendant, as stipulated by ordinance, was to provide and secure to the citizens, residents, and property owners of the city better protection against fires. Our Court held that these facts stated a cause of action. 2
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay Elec. Co-Op., Inc. v. Johnson
...of the plaintiff's property." Woodbury, 49 So. at 559. We have since reaffirmed both Mugge and Woodbury. In Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co., 541 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1989), we dismissed review because the lower court's decision did not conflict with those cases. The Court stated: "We now ag......
-
Rehab. Ctr. at Hollywood Hills, LLC v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
...that no such duty exists. See Arenado v. Fla. Power & Light Co. , 523 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. dismissed , 541 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1989) (holding utility did not assume duty to general public to supply electricity to traffic lights); Levy v. Fla. Power & Light Co. , 798 So. 2d......
-
Johnson v. Lance, Inc.
...bulbs or repairs. Nonetheless, citing Arenado v. Florida Power & Light Co., 523 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review dismissed, 541 So.2d 612 (Fla.1989), the judge concluded that Clay Electric had no legally recognized duty to maintain these lights for the benefit of the decedent. The tria......
-
Levy v. Florida Power & Light Co.
...the negligence of the power company. See Arenado v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 523 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. dismissed, 541 So.2d 612 (Fla.1989). In Arenado, the plaintiff was killed in a collision at an intersection controlled by a traffic signal which was inoperative due to a ......
-
2 The Traditional Utility Monopoly
...that a utility owes no duty to a driver killed in an accident because of service disruption to a trafic light), review dismissed , 541 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1989). 144. Garrison v. Pac. Nw. Bell, 608 P.2d 1206, 1211 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). ENV Hempling Pub Util Final.indd 61 8/7/13 4:37 PM The laws......