Civil Litigation
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Summary Judgment Cases: 33
Two actions, both involving single vehicle accidents, were tried together. The accidents occurred at the same intersection within an 12 hour period. At issue was whether stop sign placement at an intersection was proper. The facts showed that the stop sign post was broken off at the bottom and that the sign had been placed back in the ground. Although the post was replaced after the second accident, it was unknown as to whether the sign was broken before the first accident, and it was clearly broken at the time of the second accident. The broken post made the stop sign too low and its low height necessitated the sign’s replacement. The stop sign was replaced three times over the weekend the accidents occurred. There was evidence that at the time of the first accident, the stop sign was placed approximately 8 feet from the side of the road, and evidence that at the time of the second accident, the sign was placed 18 feet from the side of the road. The trial court concluded that the stop sign was properly placed and clearly visible at the time of both accidents and entered a summary judgment in favor of the defense. The appellate court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting summary judgment because the facts permitted different reasonable inferences and that such inferences provided grounds for a finding in favor of the plaintiffs.
Read More
Caruso v. Baumle
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2295 (Fla. 5th DCA October 25, 2002)
2002-10-25
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
There is ambiguity in the statutes that needs to be addressed by the legislature regarding set-off from collateral sources. Section 768.76, Florida Statutes, requires the court to reduce the damage award by the collateral source payments, whereas section 627.7372 requires that evidence of collateral source payments be presented to the jury during trial and the jury deduct those payments from its verdict.
Read More
D
27 Fla. L. Weekly D2217 (Fla. 2nd DCA October 18, 2002)
2002-10-18
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The court found that under current Florida case law a set-off was not appropriate where one tortfeasor settled and another went through a jury trial for the same incident that caused injury to the plaintiff and the settling party was not included on the verdict form. Furthermore, although the plaintiffs received a windfall when they received forgiveness of the hospital bill, the court could find no authority which would have allowed them to grant a set-off for that particular amount.
Read More
Trial court erred in not granting plaintiff a new trial where racial epithet on an audio tape of a conversation between plaintiffs was exploited by the defense and could have been rephrased for the jury in a way that would not have changed the meaning of the sentence or reduced its relevance. Any probative value of the racial slur was outweighed by the prejudice that resulted from the jury hearing it. Court noted that the Florida Supreme Court has held that introduction into evidence of a racial or ethnic slur is not per se reversible error.
Read More
A notice for trial is no longer viable if the plaintiff files an amended complaint, thereby reopening the pleadings. Florida R. Civ. Pro. 1.440 provides that
Read More
Multiple lawyers admitted pro hac vice individually submitted motions for summary judgment that collectively exceeded the page requirement under the local rules. The court ordered that certain portions of the motions be stricken from the record and that the attorneys personally appear to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Read More
The Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant's expert to instruct the jury as to how the rules set out in a building code applied to the facts of the case. The court opined that the testimony of the Defendant's expert led the jury to incorrectly conclude the Plaintiff's responsibilities under the building code excused the Defendant of its responsibilities under tort law.
Read More
Gouveia v. Phillips
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1751 (Fla. 4th DCA August 9, 2002)
2002-08-09
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In a medical malpractice action, expert testimony on the issue of informed consent is not necessary. The jury could decide whether the doctor told the plaintiff about the possibility of amputation and whether the plaintiff knew of and consented to the amputation.
Read More
Woodard v. Fanboy
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C849 (11th Cir. August 2, 2002)
2002-08-02
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment was improperly granted to the defendant on claims brought under the Fair Housing Act. Although the defendant had advanced legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for actions taken against the tenant, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the available evidence refuted the defendant
Read More
The court found the state law claim and request for equitable distribution was completely preempted by ERISA, which superceded state laws when the claim related to an employee benefit plan.
Read More
Summary judgment was improperly affirmed by the appellate court where prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Prisoner had been handcuffed to a hitching post on two difference occasions as punishment for behavior and was not given sufficient water or bathroom breaks. The Supreme Court found that the defense of qualified immunity was not permitted at the summary judgment phase of the trial. The conduct of the guards clearly violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Read More
Summary judgment was improperly denied. A county may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when a non-majority of the commissioners voted to eliminate a public employee
Read More
ERISA does not preempt the Illinois HMO Act, where the Act provides for an independent medical review of a denied claim for services that have not been found to be medically necessary. The Court found that the Act regulates the insurance industry and is therefore outside the scope of ERISA. The Court also focused on the fact that the process provided by the Act was not of an arbitral nature and was merely an assurance of a second opinion in necessary cases.
Read More
The first District Court of Appeals found that if multiple plaintiffs make a joint proposal and fail to apportion the damages, the defendant cannot be held responsible for payment of attorney fees and costs, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999), if the settlement offer was at least 25% less than the actual recovery. The court relied on the Second District
Read More
A plaintiff in a personal injury case may not recover prejudgment post-verdict interest. Court stated its holding was bolstered by the plain language of Fla. Stat.
Read More
In cases where part of expert opinion testimony is subject to the Frye test and part of the testimony is pure opinion, the trial court must determine which portions meet the Frye threshold for
Read More
Neither the right of privacy nor Florida or federal consumer protection acts prohibit disclosure of past and current employees
Read More
Harry v. Marchant
15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. c590 (11th Cir. May 24 , 2002)
2002-05-24
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
There is no duty under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to stabilize a patient who was not transferred. The language of EMTALA only requires that patients be stabilized in the event of transfers. Plaintiffs are not without traditional negligence and medical malpractice claims.
Read More
Morgan v. Campbell
27 Fla. L. Weekly D1148 (Fla. 2nd DCA, May 24, 2002)
2002-05-24
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Second District Court of Appeal held that a trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when the plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court. However, this sanction should be imposed only on a "clear showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or similar wrongdoing." The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of the facts and revealing only some of the facts does not constitute truthful disclosure.
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court and remanded with directions that a new trial be granted based on certain jurors failing to provide honest responses during voir dire questioning. The Court relied on De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995), wherein a three-prong test was established to determine whether a juror
Read More
Failing to state a cause of action is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis to support a finding that a claim was so lacking in merit as to justify an award of fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2000). A finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney
Read More
The term
Read More
Florida
Read More
In order to successfully file an injunction a party must show: 1) irreparable harm if the status quo is not maintained, 2) no remedy of law and, 3) substantial likelihood of success. Even if all these elements are met, if an injunction results in the interests of the public being outweighed by the interests of an individual, then it must be denied. Here the court reasoned that, although the actions of school boards do fall under the Sunshine Laws, the actions of the staff generally do not. Thus, as was the case here, the staff
Read More
Cohen v. Cohen
27 Fla. L. Weekly D883 (Fla. 4th DCA April 26, 2002)
2002-04-26
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The fact that a defendant
Read More
As a general rule, inadmissible hearsay cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment. To defeat summary judgment by the use of hearsay evidence, the nonmoving party must also show that the contents of the statements
Read More
Kinney, the plaintiff in a slip and fall case, appealed from a final summary judgement in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff slipped and fell as he walked up the outdoor stairs in the back of his office building. He stated that he slipped on a powdery substance; he also saw
Read More
Cohen v. Cohen
27 Fla. L. Weekly D883 (April 17, 2002)
2002-03-17
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The fact that a defendant
Read More
Interrogatories requesting a party to identify and explain the relevancy of previously discovered documents does not intrude upon the work-product privilege, and therefore must be disclosed upon request. The court did distinguish that the interrogatories requested information pertaining only to the small number of documents with which the opposing party already was familiar since they were produced in earlier discovery. In Justice Stevenson
Read More
The appellate court found that it was error to grant summary judgment for defendants on the basis of relief executed by the plaintiffs where there were disputed issues of material fact concerning whether the release was a valid contract and binding on the plaintiffs.
John Doe, the surviving spouse and personal representative of the Estate of Jane Doe, appealed from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellees, North Okaloosa Medical Center and Mozelle Folmar, and a dismissal with prejudice in favor of appellee S. Ray Tresch, in the Doe
Read More
Summary judgment is appropriate where actions were taken pursuant to a Credit Agreement and thus, within the Defendant
Read More
Because the plaintiff did not allege facts which indicated a violation of a state law duty, a prerequisite to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court found that summary judgment was appropriate.
Read More
Summary judgment for defendant was properly entered in a case where a plaintiff filed suit against the operator of a golf course to recover for injuries suffered when another golf league member struck plaintiff with a golf cart. The court reasoned that golf league members using golf carts were properly viewed as co-bailees or joint venturers.
Read More
