#### Billee C. HOLLIMAN, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1977.

Hawkesworth, Schmick, Ponzoli & Was-senberg, Miami, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Raymond C. Clay, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Billee C. Holliman appeals from an adverse summary final judgment, granted in favor of defendants in an automobile negligence action.

The accident occurred at a controlled sign intersection of N.E. 19th Avenue and Miami Gardens Drive when Holliman, who had been travelling north, attempted to make a left turn with a green light from 19th Avenue to go west on Miami Gardens Drive. A Southern Bell Telephone van was parked close to the median strip on the opposite corner and allegedly blocked her vision of traffic coming in the opposite direction. As Holliman turned in front of the van, a North Miami Beach police vehicle [driven by Nelson] coming south, also with a green light, on 19th Avenue struck Holliman’s vehicle on the right front side. Allegedly, because of the van, Nelson made a blind entry into the intersection.

The appellant contends the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for a summary final judgment, because there exist genuine issues of material fact, to wit: whether or not the speed of Nelson’s car and the manner in which he oper*752ated the police car was a contributing cause of the accident. As to Southern Bell, there was an issue of fact, to wit: whether or not Southern Bell was negligent in placing the van in a position where it blocked the vision of the drivers and thus contributed to the cause of the accident.

We affirm as to Southern Bell. See: *Shephard v. Azzarelli Construction Co.,*294 So.2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). In reviewing *Wilfork v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc.,*343 So.2d 84 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cited by the appellant, it appears there was an allegation the vehicle was illegally parked. Thus, that case is not applicable herein, where there was no such allegation.

We reverse as to Nelson and the City of North Miami Beach, under the holding in *Cunningham v. Romano,*278 So.2d 631 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); *Proctor & Gamble Dist. Co. v. McGlamery,*341 So.2d 521 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings between the plaintiff and the defendants, City of North Miami Beach and Nelson.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

PEARSON, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Although I concur in the holding of the court that the summary judgment should be reversed as to the City of North Miami Beach and its employee, Nelson, I would also reverse as to Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company inasmuch as there appear to be no adequate refutations of the allegations of negligence and proximate cause found in paragraph six of the appellant’s amended complaint.1

1

. “6. That at the above time and place, an employee of SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, while working in the scope of his employment, parked one of SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY’S trucks in the middle of Northeast 19th Avenue in a negligent manner so as to cause a hazard to vehicles driving in the vicinity. The position of the truck was such that it obstructed the vision of drivers traveling on Northeast 19th Avenue and that as a direct result of the position in which the truck was parked, there was created an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists such as the Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY employee in parking the truck in the position that he did, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident with a vehicle being driven south on Northeast 19th Avenue and the Plaintiff suffered injuries as more fully set forth below.”