HomeMy WebLinkAbout2398 . i
. .
was under a statutory duty to furnish, operate~ and matntain said
traffic device. Ttxi trial court gr~ntc~d appellees' mott~n and entered
,
final summary ~udgment for appellees,
There te adequate precedentiel auttwrity for the action taken
by the trtal judge. City of Tampa v. Davis. Fla. App, 1969, 226 So. 2d
450, relying on N,odlin v. City of 1~4tam~ Beach, Fla. 1967. 201 So.2d
?0, held that a ctry would be liable for an tnjury allegedty arising from
negl~gent performance of the governmental function of traffic control
only if there was some direct transaction between some city officer and
the plaintiff. See tc~o Niathews v. City of Tampa, Fta. App, 19b9,
~ 227 So, 2d 211. In the present case appellants' complaim did not allege
that there was any such direct transaction, Hence the summary final
judgment for appeltees was pruper,
Appellants rely heavily upon Shealur v. Ruud, Fla, App. 19b9.
221 So, 2d 765, - We wouid distfnguish that deei~ion as holding tl~t the
eity undertook to perform a dut}~ which ccx~id have (or perhap~ should
have) been performed by the ra ilrc~ad company and thus in that siCUation
the city was acting in its proprietary capacity. Thus ~ liability for
negligence coc~ld and did attach. ~
,
~ Accordingly, since in the preFent case no liability ccwld arise
' for the exercise of this gcnrernme~tai function tn the factual situation
I
~ alleged in the complaint, there was no genuine ~ssue of fact, and sum-
~
~ mary judgment was approprt,ate.
AFFIRMED.
~
~
~
; CR06S and MAGER, JJ, , concur. ,
x ~
~
~ 1
t
~
~
~
~
~ ~aax
~ R 245 ~~2395
_ _ ~ ~ _
_