 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Fort v. Post5/18/2005
Mark Phillip St. Fort, et al., appeal a final summary judgment in favor of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. ("Post Buckley"), and denial of rehearing in a negligence action. St. Fort argues that the trial court erred in holding that defendants were not liable because the action by another person in rear-ending the St. Fort vehicle constituted the active and efficient intervening cause for any alleged damages. We agree and reverse.
On November 30, 1990, at approximately 10:30 p.m., St. Fort and several other adults and children were passengers in a motor vehicle on the southbound Sheridan Street ramp to I-95 in Broward County. St. Fort alleged that the vehicle was forced to come to a sudden stop due to the dangerous condition of the access ramp. In particular, St. Fort alleged that the ramp "existed, and/or was maintained, in a hazardous condition, in that there was insufficient space for ingress/egress, insufficient visibility, insufficient stopping space, insufficient emergency access, and/or other improper/insufficient and dangerous circumstances." While the vehicle was stopped on the access ramp, a vehicle operated by Mason Fuchs rear-ended the St. Fort vehicle, allegedly as a result of the dangerous roadway conditions, and caused the St. Fort vehicle to collide with a retaining wall, causing its occupants serious, permanent bodily injuries.
Post Buckley and co-defendants, Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT"), Archer Western Contractors, and Morrison Knudson Engineers, were involved in a construction project on the section of I-95 where the accident occurred. Post Buckley was hired by Morrison Knudsen Engineers to provide on-site consulting, engineering, and inspection services ("C.E.I.") for the highway construction project at or near the subject on-ramp. Prior to the date of the accident, defendants had created a new on-ramp, altering the acceleration lane and merge area onto I-95. The new ramp was not constructed in compliance with FDOT specifications. The design plan called for a 400 foot long acceleration lane, but it was actually constructed to be zero feet. Additionally, the plan called for a 250 foot long merge area, but it was actually constructed closer to 200 feet. Defendants admitted that the way the ramp existed at the time of the accident did not accord with the construction plan.
As Trooper Barry Radanof testified "the entire roadway was under construction, and there was no - the way the ramp dumps into that lane, the extreme right-hand outer lane, as we call it - the ramp just dumps into it. There's no merge lane there." Radanof also testified that there were two retaining walls dividing the approach ramp and the main lane of I-95 during construction, one wall on the ramp and one on the I-95 side. These walls could obstruct the driver's view on the ramp looking out the left window trying to find a break to enter I-95 traffic.
At the time of the accident, Vladimir Pierre-Louis was driving the St. Fort vehicle. He testified in deposition that there was not much light where he was driving up the ramp approaching I-95, and he could barely see where he was going with his headlights on. There were no overhead street lights. He did not recall seeing any lighting poles, nor any reflectors along the roadway. Fuchs, the driver of vehicle that rear-ended the St. Fort vehicle, also testified in deposition that there was absolutely no lighting on the access ramp. Fuchs testified that, although there were lights on I-95, the ramp area was "pitch black." Fuchs was unable to see that there was a car in front of him until he was only eight to ten feet away. In contrast, Trooper Radanoff testified in deposition that "it was dark, but it was lit with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|