HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-92-0457J-92-454
6/22/92
r-)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY TO "APPEL & BROWN, AS TRUSTEES
OF NADINE MARIA BURLEY", THE SUM OF
$52,840.59 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SATISFACTION
OF JUDGMENT, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST THROUGH
AUGUST 10, 1992, AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI,
IN CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 89-12476 (CA 23),
UPON THE EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FUNDS TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE
INSURANCE AND SELF -.INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
WHEREAS, Nadine Maria Burley, through her attorneys Appel &
Brown, filed a claim and lawsuit against the City of Miami, in
the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 89-12476 (CA
23), for negligence arising out of an automobile accident
involving a City of Miami, GSA, pickup truck driven by Jose Briz,
on September 1, 1988, at or near N.W. 7th Avenue and 54th Street,
Miami, Dade County, Florida;
WHEREAS, the above claim and lawsuit was tried before a jury
resulting in a verdict against the City of Miami, and the entry
of a Final Judgment in the amount of $43,311.96, including costs
and interest accruing at 12% per year; and
WHEREAS, the Final Judgment was appealed to the Third
District Court of Appeal resulting in the Final Judgment being
affirmed;
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
J t4 (. Q 9 1992
Resolution No.
92- 457
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
pay "Appel & Brown; as trustees for Nadine Maria Burley",
- forthwith, the sum of $52,840.59 in full and complete
-� satisfaction of the Final Judgment, plus accrued interest through
-� August 10, 1992, against the City of Miami, in Circuit Court Case
No. 89-12476 (CA 23), upon the execution of a Satisfaction of -
�l
- Judgment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, said money to
be provided from the Insurance and Self -Insurance Trust Fund.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 1992. _
AVIE L "SUAREZr MAYOR
ATTEST-
MATTATTEST-
MATTY HIRAI -
CITY CLERK
t.
-, SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND REVIEW:
SUJAN CHHABRA, DIREC OR
DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT
92-- 457
,k -
-2-
BUDGETARY REVIEW:
MANOHAR SUSUF4NA
ASSISTANT IT MANAGER
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
KEN UITTMn
ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
CITY AT T 7
WB/Sls/M30l2
92- 457
"IT =LORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
J-92-454
TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE June 15, 1992 FILE L-89-071
of the City Commission
SUBJECT Resolution Authorizing Payment
of Final Judgment in favor of
Nadine Maria Burley
�uEinrones, III Wr
FROM City t rney REFERENCES City Commission Agenda
ENCLOSURES: July 9, 1992( 3 )
v
-i
Attached is a proposed Resolution authorizing the Director of
Finance to pay "Appel & Brown, as trustees of Nadine Maria
Burley", the sum of $52,840.59, in full and complete satisfaction
of the judgment against the City of Miami, dated October 11, 1990,
in the amount of $43,311.96, and bearing interest at the rate of
12% through August 10, 1992 ($9,528.63), upon the execution of a
Satisfaction of Judgment in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
In brief, the claimant proved to the satisfaction of a jury that
she sustained injuries in an accident involving a collision with a
City of Miami pickup truck, in which the City driver is alleged to
have violated the plaintiff's right-of-way when making a left-hand
turn. The City attempted to defend the claim upon the assertion
that the traffic light was "inoperative" showing both yellow and
green at the same time, requiring both drivers to treat the
intersection as a four-way stop as provided by applicable traffic
statutes. Since our driver stopped, but the claimant didn't, we
claimed that claimant's failure to stop was the sole cause of the
accident. The trial judge ruled that the traffic statutes so
directing didn't apply to a traffic light that was both green and
yellow, thus eliminating our sole defense. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court and specifically opined that the traffic
light had to be completely "out" to apply, and that, in our
situation, it was merely "malfunctioning", not "inoperative".
This holding is contrary to previous holdings of the same
appellate court. Unfortunately, there is no further avenue of
appellate relief available to the Supreme Court of Florida because
there is no conflict with another district court of appeal.
We attach a copy of the Final Judgment and Opinion of the Third
District Court of Appeal for your review.
AQJ/WB/sls/P1433
7 attachments 9 2 .-'