CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 366882
...tions relating to (1) Section
316.1235, Florida Statutes (1989), requiring a vehicle to stop when approaching an intersection where traffic lights are inoperative; (2) Section
316.183, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), regarding unlawful speed; and (3) Section
316.076, Florida Statutes (1989), pertaining to a motorist's duty to proceed with caution at an intersection *48 at which flashing signals are located....
...hts which alternately stop traffic and then permit it to proceed; [2] whereas the evidence showed that the signal Pierce approached, if operative, would have revealed a continuous, flashing caution signal, which, in compliance with the provisions of section 316.076, directs the motorist to proceed through the intersection only with caution....
...The other, designated an official traffic control signal, is defined as "[a]ny device, whether manually, electrically, or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed." §
316.003(24), Fla. Stat. (1989). Because flashing red and yellow signals, described in section
316.076, do not control traffic by alternately directing it to stop and proceed, they are obviously not the type of signals defined in subsection (24)....
...We therefore conclude that by using the term "traffic lights" in section
316.1235, the legislature clearly intended to include both traffic control signal devices, as referred to in section
316.075, i.e., those which alternately direct traffic to stop and permit it to proceed, as well as those provided in section
316.076, i.e., flashing red or yellow signals, which respectively direct the motorist to stop and then proceed into the intersection, or proceed with caution through the intersection....
...In so deciding, we note that in 1971 the legislature enacted the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law, which included the definitions for official traffic control devices and traffic control signals, as well as section
316.075 (originally numbered 316.138), and section
316.076 (originally numbered 316.133)....
...f negligence. Moreover, in that the evidence was conflicting concerning whether the caution signal at the intersection in question was *50 operative, the plaintiff was entitled as well to have her requested instruction given regarding a violation of section 316.076, advising the jury that Pierce's failure to proceed through the intersection with caution was evidence of negligence....
...Massey also opined that a motorist could safely go through the intersection where the collision occurred in excess of the *51 posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, stating that motorists frequently exceeded the speed limit there. Thus, contrary to the requirement of section
316.076, providing that a motorist approaching an intersection with a flashing caution signal should proceed through the intersection only with caution, and that of section
316.183, stating that speed shall be appropriately reduced when appro...
