THE FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. PATRICIA ANN ANDREWS, Personal Representative of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER WAYNE ANDREWS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, CASE NO. 1D04-0767 v. PATRICIA ANN ANDREWS, Personal Representative of the Estate of CHRISTOPHER WAYNE ANDREWS, Appellee. _________________________/ Opinion filed June 17, 2005. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County. Honorable George H. Pierce, Judge. Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Linzie F. Bogan, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Aaron Metcalf of Farah, Farah & Abbott, Jacksonville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Christopher Andrews was tragically killed when his car collided with a cow, owned by the University of Florida, on highway 241. The main issue at trial was whether the University s negligence allowed the cow to get onto the highway. On the issue of negligence, the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that the defendant s alleged failure to comply with section 588.01, Florida Statutes, could be considered as evidence of the defendant s negligence under section 588.15, Florida Statutes (1999). See Hanson v. Scharber, 749 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that an issue of material fact remained as to whether livestock owners had constructed an adequate fence to restrain a bull, even though the owners had complied with the fencing requirements in chapter 588); Zuppardo v. O Hare, 487 So. 2d 39, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that the fencing requirements in sections 588.01 through 588.11 have nothing to do with the remaining sections of chapter 588, known as the Warren Act ); Davidson v. Howard, 438 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (same). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial. DAVIS, LEWIS AND POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
