Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County

• Citation: 459 So.2d 332
• Decision Date: 09 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-2711,83-2711
• Parties: Edna OSORIO, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 332

459 So.2d 332

Edna OSORIO, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 83-2711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

Oct. 9, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1984.

Schwartz, Klein, Steinhardt, Weiss & Weinstein, P.A., and Mark L. Weinstein and Alan D. Sackrin, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Atty. and James A. Jurkowski, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ., and DELL, JOHN W., Associate Judge.

DELL, JOHN W., Associate Judge.

Appellant, Edna Osorio, appeals an adverse final summary judgment.

Appellant suffered personal injuries in an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of East First Avenue and East Seventeenth Street in Hialeah, Florida. She filed suit against Dade County and alleged that Dade County negligently failed to maintain the existing stop sign and failed to warn her of a known dangerous condition at the intersection. She further asserted that mere compliance with the mandatory provisions of the manual on uniform traffic control devices does not bar an action for negligence in the installation of the signs.

Appellant claimed that she had never driven through this intersection prior to the evening of the accident and that she did not see the "stop ahead" sign or the stop sign located at the corner of East First Avenue. Appellant presented evidence that a large ficus tree trunk obstructed the stop sign located at the intersection, which necessitated the placement of a stop ahead sign. She also presented evidence that notwithstanding a work order issued by appellee's Department of Traffic and Transportation directing the exact placement of the stop ahead sign, the sign was actually installed in a different location.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine questions of fact as to the negligence of appellee exist. Appellee contends that the decisions concerning the placement of the stop sign and the stop ahead sign constituted planning functions which remain immune from tort liability. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1979). Appellee also argues that the actual placement of the sign technically complies with the minimum mandatory provisions of the manual on uniform traffic control devices, thereby conclusively establishing its absence of negligence.

When the visibility of a stop sign is...