A. J. Orton Constr. Co. v. Woodward, 280 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). · Go Syfert
A. J. Orton Constr. Co. v. Woodward, 280 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
A. J. ORTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Florida corporation
v.
Clay William Cranston WOODWARD
No. 72-153.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jun 29, 1973.
280 So. 2d 32
1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7796
Samuel H. Adams, West Palm Beach, for appellant., Donald E. Brodbeck and Harry Lee An-stead of Simpson & Anstead, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Clay William Cranston Woodward., John R. Beranek, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellees City of West Palm Beach, Rubin Construction Co. and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Mager, Owen, Reed.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. OWEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent

OWEN, Judge

(dissenting) :

Mr. Woodward sustained personal injuries when the motorcycle he was riding on South Olive Avenue in the City of West Palm Beach struck a trench extending across the roadway, causing him to be thrown from his motorcycle. His suit named as defendants the City of West Palm Beach, Rubin Construction Co., (the general contractor for the repair and paving of the street) and Appellant-Orton Construction Company (the subcontractor which had excavated the trench). Mr. Woodward recovered judgment against all three defendants.

Appellant excavated the trench, laid the telephone cables therein, and replaced the excavated material by 2:00 P.M. At that point its contractual obligation was completed, and there being no evidence that such work was performed negligently, appellant’s responsibility to the general public terminated. The fact that the fill material thereafter deteriorated while the site was under the control of the general contractor, Rubin Construction Co., was not, in my opinion, a valid basis upon which to permit the case against appellant to go to the jury. I would reverse the judgment as against appellant.