Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Costs Cases: 7
In order to have an actionable negligence claim against a government entity, there must be a common law or statutory duty regarding the alleged negligent conduct. In this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that probation supervision is a discretionary government function for which there is no duty of care to individual probationers or corresponding tort liability.
Read More
Jordan v. Masters
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1454 (Fla. 4th DCA June 28, 2002)
2002-06-28
COSTS
In closing arguments, lawyers are permitted to argue adverse inferences from the evidence. However, the court may not instruct the jury on the law to apply to the facts when there is conflicting evidence. This may have significant adverse affects on a jury
Read More
The court found that even if allegedly improper comments made by doctor
Read More
In reversing an order granting summary judgment in favor of American Hotel, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the parties had, in fact, entered into a legally enforceable contract based on the following basic rules of contract interpretation: 1) the contract should be considered as a whole, not in isolated parts; 2) the plain meaning of language used in a contract controls where that language is unambiguous; 3) employment contracts that provide a definite duration are enforceable; and 4) the interpretation of the contract should be consistent with reason, probability and the practical aspect of the transaction. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the contract did not contain an express statement as to duration, the trial court should have determined the intent of the parties by examining the nature and circumstances surrounding the contract and its execution and reasonably construed the agreement as a whole.
Read More
A party adversely affected by the trial court
Read More
The Second District Court of Appeals reaffirmed rule 1.420(e), Fla. R. Civ. P., in requiring a two-step process in deciding whether a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is appropriate. The first step is for the moving party to show that there is no record activity for at least a one year period preceding the motion. The second step, required only if no record activity is determined during the period in question, allows the opposing party to establish a good cause for failing to meet date requirements. In the current case, the court determined that there was no record activity for a period of over one year. Then turning to the second step, the court found that there was good cause for delay by opposing counsel when they previously contacted the moving counsel and explained their troubles locating a witness. The court stressed that this courtesy rewarded opposing counsel but was considered very weak evidence.
Read More
The plaintiff tried the case on a single theory: whether the defendant, the owner of an apartment building, negligently maintained a dangerous doorway exit causing plaintiff, a visitor, to suffer serious injuries. There was evidence that the exit violated the building code in at least three respects.
The owner, who had the building for some 10 years but lived in Canada, sought to defend by showing that no one had ever told him of the building code violations, and thus he lacked knowledge of the dangerous conditions. As the trial was getting underway, the plaintiff moved in limine to exclude any evidence of the defense of lack of knowledge. After listening to extensive argument on the issue of knowledge just before plaintiff
Read More
