EDWARD RICHARD SHORES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JESSIE RUTH SHORES, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
NORBERT WEGMANN, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN AGENT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY HOSPITAL, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shores appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, Dr. Weg-mann. Shores argues that summary judgment was not proper because appellee failed to conclusively show that Wegmann exercised the degree of skill or care consistent with the standards of his community or of a comparable community in rendering medical care to the decedent. We agree and reverse.
A careful reading of the record shows that it is silent with regard to wheth er Wegmann exercised the degree of skill required to preclude liability. A record that is silent on a determinative issue of fact forecloses summary judgment, for the movant’s burden is to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Glass v. Camara, 369 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Reversed and Remanded.
MELVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregoria Valcin and Gerard Valcin v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…proceedings to conclusively show either that Mrs. Valcin was advised of this risk or that not advising her of this risk was in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Shores v. Wegmann, 370 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Reynolds v. Burt, 359 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). It cannot be said that the hospital conclusively showed that Mrs. Valcin was advised of the risk of an ectopic pregna…
-
Langner v. Charles A. Binger, Inc., 503 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…properly granted only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). The issue of negligence is usually not properly resolved by summary judgment. Shores v. Wegmann, 370 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Avampato v. Markus, 245 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). This is so even if the facts are not disputed. McNulty v. Garvey, 189 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). “Unless a movant can show unequivocally that there was no negligence, .…
-
Horizon S. Master Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walter B. West and wife, 591 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…t of that doctrine; and that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. If the record “is silent on a determinative issue of fact,” then plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden, and the final order must be reversed. Shores v. Wegmann, 370 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The essential elements which must be proved to establish a boundary by acquiescence are: (1) uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the true boundary; (2) location of a boundary line by the parties; and (3) acquiescen…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Olivene G. Glass v. Camara, 369 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)