Case Name: Candace GRIER, Thomas Grier and Southeast Bank N.A., as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Robert W. Grier, deceased, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. BANKERS LAND COMPANY and The Shaker Corporation, Inc., Appellees/Cross Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-03-08
Citations: 539 So. 2d 552
Docket Number: No. 87-0358
Parties: Candace GRIER, Thomas Grier and Southeast Bank N.A., as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Robert W. Grier, deceased, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. BANKERS LAND COMPANY and The Shaker Corporation, Inc., Appellees/Cross Appellants.
Judges: DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 539
Pages: 552–555

Head Matter:
Candace GRIER, Thomas Grier and Southeast Bank N.A., as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Robert W. Grier, deceased, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. BANKERS LAND COMPANY and The Shaker Corporation, Inc., Appellees/Cross Appellants.
No. 87-0358.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 8, 1989.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1989.
Robert P. Jordan of Robert F. Jordan, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants/cross appellees.
Wesley L. Catri and Edward D. Schuster of Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton and Douberley, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellees/cross appellants.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellees but decline to rule on the interlocutory issues also raised on appeal. Those issues should be resolved in an appeal from the final judgment after trial.
The appellant, personal representative of a person killed in a collision at an intersection adjacent to appellees' property, alleged negligence by the appellees in allowing bushes and trees growing from their property into the adjacent right of way so as to block the view of the deceased as he approached the intersection. The trial court held that the intervening negligence of the motorist who apparently entered the intersection after failing to stop for a stop sign was the sole proximate cause of the accident as a matter of law. We disagree. First, we note that there is a conflict in the record as to whether the motorist ran the stop sign. More importantly, however, there is evidence that the growth from appellees' land did block the view of approaching motorists so as to prevent them from viewing other vehicles approaching and crossing the intersection. Based upon the evidence, we believe a jury of reasonable persons could conclude that allowing such growth into the right-of-way was negligence and that such negligence could reasonably be foreseen to contribute to cause an accident such as the one involved herein. See Crislip v. Holland, 401 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
HERSEY, C.J., dissents with opinion.