HAZEL MORGAN, BRENDA MORGAN, LINDA MORGAN, HAZEL MORGAN, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES MORGAN, DECEASED, AND OLLIE OPHELIA MORGAN, DECEASED, AND HAZEL MORGAN, AS GUARDIAN OF JAMES WILSON MORGAN, JR., A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., AND MELON HARVESTING, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a wrongful death action arising from a farm worker's death during watermelon harvesting, the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding employment status, job completion, machine ownership, and responsibility, precluding summary judgment.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded judgment as a matter of law. The defendants failed to meet their burden of conclusively showing the absence of material fact disputes.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when genuine issues of material fact exist.
[2] On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“On motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all doubts and inferences must be resolved against the movant.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment and burden allocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Morgan, a farm laborer, died in an accident involving a watermelon loading and grading machine during harvesting operations. The defendants were…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this wrongful death action for damages arising from the death of James Morgan, a farm laborer involved in the harvesting of watermelons, the trial court entered final summary judgments in favor of appel-lee/defendant Growers Marketing Service, Inc. and appellee/defendant Melon Harvesting, Inc. The trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that each appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We disagree and reverse.
On motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all doubts and inferences must be resolved against the movant. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 351 So. 2d 29, 32 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
We have carefully reviewed the rather lengthy record in the application of the above-stated rule, and we conclude that it cannot be said that appellees met their “. . . burden of showing conclusively that genuine issues of material fact do not exist.” Holl v. Talcott, supra, 191 So. 2d at 47. See also Tamiami Builders, Inc. v. Smith, 305 So. 2d 58 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).
On the contrary, the record herein reveals the presence of issues of material fact, including, inter alia, the employment status of James Morgan at the time of his death in relation to appellee Growers Marketing Service, Inc.; whether appellee Growers had, in fact, completed its job and left the premises prior to the fatal accident; whether appellee Growers had given Sam and David Gadsden permission to use the watermelon loading and grading machine which was involved in the death of Morgan; and, as to appellee Melon Harvesting, Inc., whether Melon was the owner of the aforesaid machine, as alleged in appellants’ complaint, but denied by Melon in answer to the complaint, in the face of the sworn statement of the co-defendant, appellee Growers, on discovery that Growers leased the machine from Melon, the owner of the machine. Further, that if Melon was the owner of the machine, it failed to carry its summary judgment burden of showing it was, in no way responsible for the accident.
Accordingly, the final summary judgments appealed from are hereby REVERSED, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Tamiami Builders, Inc. v. Louis P. Smith & the Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 305 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)