Case Name: Marcus EVANS, Jr. and Michael Evans, Minors, by and through their father, Marcus Evans, Sr., Carol Evans and Marcus Evans, Sr., individually and as her husband, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN HOLDING CORPORATION and Insurance Company of North America, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-11-25
Citations: 391 So. 2d 231
Docket Number: No. 79-675
Parties: Marcus EVANS, Jr. and Michael Evans, Minors, by and through their father, Marcus Evans, Sr., Carol Evans and Marcus Evans, Sr., individually and as her husband, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN HOLDING CORPORATION and Insurance Company of North America, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 391
Pages: 231–234

Head Matter:
Marcus EVANS, Jr. and Michael Evans, Minors, by and through their father, Marcus Evans, Sr., Carol Evans and Marcus Evans, Sr., individually and as her husband, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN HOLDING CORPORATION and Insurance Company of North America, Appellees.
No. 79-675.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 25, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1981.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Miami, Tobin & Thomson, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Lane, Mitchell & Harris and Byron B. Mathews, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The appellants, Carol Evans, Michael Evans and Marcus Evans, Jr., were plaintiffs in the trial court. They claimed damages for personal injury in an automobile inter-sectional collision. The only defendants concerned with this appeal are Southern Holding Corporation and its insurance company, Insurance Company of North America. Southern Holding Corporation was the owner and developer of a subdivision which was under construction at the time of the accident and was the owner of the four corners of land adjacent to the intersection when the accident occurred. The plaintiffs appeal a summary final judgment for the defendant.
The only arguable basis for reversal of the summary final judgment is that an issue of fact remained to be tried as to the liability of the defendant founded upon allegations of the complaint that the defendant contributed to the cause of the accident by allowing high weeds to grow on the southwest corner and by storing heavy equipment on that corner of the property so that the drivers of the colliding vehicles had their view of approaching traffic obscured.
The simple question presented is whether there is a duty on a landowner to maintain his property in a condition so that a motorist approaching a public highway intersection can see other approaching motorists. It must be noted that this question excludes situations where obstructions on private property are in violation of some statute or ordinance. See 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets and Bridges § 365, 462 (1968); 23 Fla.Jur. Negligence § 69 (1959), and compare Bohm v. Racette, 118 Kan. 670, 236 P. 811 (1925). The question also excludes situations where the obstruction protrudes onto public property. See Gulf Refining Co. v. Gilmore, 112 Fla. 366, 152 So. 621 (1933); 16 Fla.Jur. Highways, Streets and Bridges § 119 (1957), and 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets and Bridges § 359 (1968).
A recent Florida case involving the obstruction of the view of approaching traffic, which is cited by both parties to this appeal, is Cook v. Martin, 330 So.2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). This opinion held without discussion that a summary judgment must be reversed when there is an issue as to whether a private driveway of a trailer park was so unsafe because of obstructions as to constitute a trap for lawful users of the private driveway. The proposition advanced by the plaintiffs in the present case is much broader. They urge that we disregard the traditional rule that the owner of land is under no affirmative duty to remedy conditions of purely natural origin upon his land and impose upon a landowner for the benefit of motorists using a public street the duty to maintain his property so that the motorist's view of intersecting traffic is not obstructed. See Prosser, Law of Torts § 57 (4th Ed. 1971); 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, Streets and Bridges § 462 (1968). We find that no such duty has been established in Florida. See Hardin v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 128 Fla. 631, 635-36, 175 So. 226, 228 (1937). As our Supreme Court in Bassett v. Edwards, 158 Fla. 848, 852, 30 So.2d 374, 376 (1947) succinctly stated:
"Obstruction of view when motoring on a highway must be observed by all motorists. Every user of the highway is required to exercise reasonable care for his own safety arid protection. It was the truck driver's duty and also the driver of the automobile to observe the oleander bush at this intersection and to bring their vehicles under such control as the situation required and demanded."
It is easy to say that the restriction on the use of private property is only that each landowner shall not unreasonably use his property, but the establishment of such duty (as urged by plaintiffs) entails the right in every intersectional collision case for the motorist to charge and litigate before a jury whether the jury thinks the landowner's use of his land is reasonable. See Rodgers v. Ray, 10 Ariz.App. 119, 457 P.2d 281 (1969). Further, we find no rational basis for such an extension of a duty concept to limit the use of private property. See discussion of the duty concept and the limitation upon the use of land at Prosser, Law of Torts § 57 (4th Ed. 1971).
Having reached the conclusion that the duty alleged as a basis for plaintiffs' claim of negligence does not create a basis for liability, we find no basis for reversal of the summary final judgment.
Affirmed.
. The complaint alleged:
"8. In addition the Defendant, SOUTHERN HOLDING CORPORATION, caused and permitted a large, dense, and high growth of weeds on its property adjacent to the intersection of S.W. 18th Street and S.W. 122nd Avenue, blocking and obstructing the view of motor vehicles approaching the intersection and constituting a 'trap' and nuisance. The Defendant, SOUTHERN HOLDING CORPORATION, caused and permitted large trailers, vans, construction equipment, and outdoor toilets to be parked in violation of law, adjacent to the intersection of S.W. 18th Street and S.W. 122nd Avenue, impairing the view of the motor vehicles approaching the intersection."