HomeMy WebLinkAbout0901 ~ ~ 380'673
• t
. ~
IN THS CIRCOIT COURT OF THTs_
NINETEF~ITH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIT COUNTY,
3TATE OF FLORIDA.
CASE NO. _?6--1408 CA
*
RATANN WALLACS and JA1~S R. *
WALLACE, II-, her husband, *
*
- Plaintiffs. *
*
vs. *
*
NATIONIIIDT ~MUTUAL FIRTs *
INSURANCS CO., a foreign * -
corporation, CAROL ld. IdIKITAs *
ASTNA CASUALTY & SDRSTY *
O01~PANY•, a foreign corporation, ` *
the CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIT, a *
municipal corporation, *
. *
Defendants. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUI~UdARY JUDGMBNT
This cause came on for hearing upon ldotion for Summary
Judganent filed by the Defendants~ CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIS and AETNA
CASUALTY & SURI3TY COMPANY. The Defendant~ AETNA CASUALZ`Y COMPANY,
is the insurance carrier of Defendant, CITY OF PORT ST. LIICITs. The
! Court has examined the depositions and pleadings and has heard and
f considered argument of counsel, and feels that there are no genuine
~ issues of material fact as to said Defendants and that they are
entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law. The thrust of
Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendant, CITY OF POBT ST. LUCIE, is
' that said Defendant City was negligent in failing to maintain a stop
sign at the intersection in question located within its corporate
~ limits. Under the law the failure of a governmental authority to
maintain a traffic control device at a given time and place does not .
constitute actionable negligence. See Commercial Carrier Corporation
~ -
~ and lierchants ~[utual Insurance Company vs. Indian River County and
~ 3tate of Florida Department of Transportation (Fla. 3rd DCA, 19??)
~
342 30. 2nd. 104?. The Court being tully advised, it is
ORDBRSD AND ADJUDGED that 3ummary Judgment be, and the same
~2?5 ~ 9pp ,
~ _k. - - - -