Speigel v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

Decision Date25 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 75--1958,75--1958
Citation341 So.2d 832
PartiesLawrence J. SPEIGEL, as personal representative of the Estates of Nereida Garcia, a minor, Deceased, on behalf of Carlos Garcia and Jesus Garcia and the Estates of Nereida Garcia and Ileana Garcia, Deceased, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in Florida, and Florida Power & Light Company, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Adams, George, Lee & Schulte and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellants.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and James D. Little, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in an action wherein the defendants were charged with negligently maintaining a light and telephone pole so near the highway that plaintiffs' driver was fatally injured when her automobile collided with the pole.

In his summary final judgment, the trial judge set forth the following, in pertinent part:

'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a utility company is under no obligation to guard against extraordinary exigencies created when a vehicle leaves the traveled portion of a roadway out of control. Oram v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company (132 N.J.Super. 491) 334 A.2d 343 (N.J.1975). The uncontradicted evidence in this case clearly shows that the plaintiff vehicle had left the roadway prior to impact with the utility pole involved herein. Summary Final Judgment therefore be and the same hereby is granted in favor of the defendants, and the defendants shall go hence without day.'

After careful consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel we have concluded that the trial judge was correct in entering the judgment appealed.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • McMillan v. State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1986
    ... ... Speigel v Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co, 341 So 2d 832 ... ...
  • Brown v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 26, 2007
    ...to a plaintiff because an accident was not reasonably foreseeable, the Afarian court cited the following: Speigel v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 341 So.2d 832, 833 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1977) (affirming summary judgment for utility company, noting that a utility company has no obligation to guard ......
  • Florida Power and Light Co. v. Lively, 81-1571
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 1985
    ...So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). As implied, if not affirmatively appearing in this court's opinion in Speigel v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. and Florida Power & Light Co., supra, wherein no duty was found, it was possible that one of the many automobiles that passed a particular ......
  • Afarian v. Massachusetts Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 30, 2007
    ...and speeding driver because such erratic and uncontrolled deviation not normal incident of travel); Speigel v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 341 So.2d 832, 833 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (affirming summary judgment for utility company, noting utility company has no obligation to guard against ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT