# Florida Board of Education v. Andrews

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · June 17, 2005 · 903 So. 2d 1048

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7776221

## Case

- **Full name:** The FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Patricia Ann ANDREWS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Wayne Andrews
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** June 17, 2005
- **Citations:** 903 So. 2d 1048; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9361; 2005 WL 1412198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Davis, Lewis, Polston
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7776221

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7776221. Public record. Not legal advice.