Lee County Department of Transportation v. The Island Water Association, Inc.
218 So. 3d 974
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 5, 2010, Annette Cantalupo tripped on a water valve cover protruding above the asphalt on Captiva Drive and was injured. Lee County owns the road; Island Water owns the valve and underlying pipes.
- Photographs/records showed the valve protruded about 1.5–2 inches because the surrounding asphalt had separated/sunk.
- Approximately three months after the accident Island Water had the asphalt around the valve repaired.
- Cantalupo sued Lee County and Island Water for negligence, alleging Island Water breached a duty to maintain/inspect/warn about the protruding valve.
- Island Water moved to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial measures and sought summary judgment that it owed no legal duty to maintain or warn about the roadway around the valve (relying in part on its agreement with Lee County).
- The trial court excluded the subsequent-repairs evidence and entered final summary judgment for Island Water; Lee County appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Island Water owed a legal duty to the public to correct or warn about a protruding valve in a public roadway | Cantalupo: Island Water assumed a duty when it operated/controlled utility equipment in the road and should have maintained/inspected/warned of the tripping hazard | Island Water: Its duty was limited to its equipment per agreement with the county; it did not install/damage the asphalt and thus had no duty to maintain the road surface | Reversed summary judgment: utility assumed a duty to maintain its valves safely in the roadway and to prevent foreseeable hazards, regardless of ownership of surrounding asphalt |
| Whether agreement with the county absolves Island Water of any duty to the public | Cantalupo: Contract does not eliminate a common-law duty arising from operating equipment that creates a foreseeable risk | Island Water: Contract limits duties to equipment only; it lacked responsibility for road surface absent having caused damage | Court: Contract does not automatically negate a duty; control or operation that creates risk can give rise to duty |
| Admissibility of evidence of subsequent remedial measures (Island Water’s post-accident asphalt repair) | Lee County: Repair evidence is admissible under the exception to Fla. Stat. § 90.407 to show ownership/control or for impeachment if controverted | Island Water: Repairs are barred by § 90.407 as evidence of negligence/culpable conduct | Court: Reversed exclusion as to control/impeachment — on remand evidence of repairs may be admissible if Island Water contests its ability to control the roadway absent equipment-related repairs |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given potential factual disputes about control and maintenance | Lee County/Cantalupo: Factual disputes (e.g., control, prior knowledge) preclude summary judgment | Island Water: No genuine issue of duty as a matter of law | Court: Summary judgment improper on duty; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chirillo v. Granicz, 199 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2016) (duty is a legal question; McCain framework governs foreseeability/duty analysis)
- McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (foreseeability and sources of duty; duty arises when conduct creates a generalized, foreseeable risk)
- Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc., 164 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (control of premises can create duty; post-accident remediation can bear on control)
- Webb v. Glades Elec. Coop., Inc., 521 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (utilities owe duty to exercise care in location, construction, use, and maintenance of equipment)
- City of Tampa v. Jorda, 445 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (utility/municipal equipment that becomes hazardous through erosion/settling can give rise to liability)