GRACE EVELYN SQUITIERI AND PAUL T. SQUITIERI, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court reversed a summary final judgment in a personal injury case, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed that should not have been decided by summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Yes, the trial judge erred in entering a summary final judgment because genuine issues of material fact were present. Such issues must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party and cannot be decided at the summary judgment stage.
[1] A summary judgment must be denied when a genuine issue of material fact exists.
[2] In a summary judgment proceeding, all questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If a trial judge determines the evidence to be insufficient to support a verdict, the appellee is entitled to a directed verdict or a judgment n. o. v. However, this determination cannot be made by summary judgment, where all questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.”
Establishes the distinction between summary judgment and other post-verdict motions and the standard for summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a maid, alleged she was injured when a sheet of glass fell from a headboard while she was cleaning. The defendants argued they did not …
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 Business Invitee cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Jud&e.
In this appeal from a summary final judgment appellant has demonstrated there were genuine issues of material fact which were decided by the trial judge when he entered the judgment. If a trial judge determines the evidence to be insufficient to support a verdict, the appellee is entitled to a directed verdict or a judgment n. o. v. However, this determination cannot be made by summary judgment, where all questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Should a genuine issue of material fact be extant, the summary judgment must be denied. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
The issues the plaintiff raises here concern her injury as a result of the alleged negligence of the individual defendants. She says she was injured when a sheet of glass resting atop a bed headboard fell as she was performing her duties as a maid in removing dust from the area. The individual defendants have answered by saying they did not breach their duty of care as business inviters; that their knowledge of a latent defect was less than the plaintiff’s knowledge; and have implied that the plaintiff “assumed the risk” or was one hundred percent comparatively negligent. All of this may be true, and even more, but a summary judgment hearing is not when those things are decided. The scores of cases following Holl can be cited as authority for the proposition that summary judgments are rarely upheld in personal injury cases because the nature of those cases involve disputes of fact almost invariably. While we see few summary judgments awarded in personal injury cases we find many properly entered in other areas of the law such as mortgage foreclosures, "suits on notes or contracts and other cases founded upon written instruments where there are no genuine disputes over material issues of fact.
The summary judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cronebaugh v. van Dyke, 415 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…although they were not involved in this litigation. . The defenses asserted were Laches, Waiver and Estoppel, and accord and satisfaction. . Shepard v. City of Palatka, 399 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Squitieri v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 382 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Jones v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 382 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Appellee’s counsel said all the money was paid to the boys: But we need not get to that issue today. The issue today is on the motion on Judgment on the…
-
Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…outhland Recreation Enterprises, 383 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980), (dismissal of complaint reversed); Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), (directed verdict for defendant reversed); Squitieri v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 382 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), (summary judgment for defendant reversed); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), (directed verdict for defendant reversed); Eachus v. Big Daddy’s Lounges, Inc., 380 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Phil…1 / 2
-
Ayala v. J. M. Fields, Inc., 390 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…nt’s employer to repair the equipment was fulfilling its duty, imposed by law, to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. Pittman v. Volusia County. Appellant has cited this court’s opinion in Squitieri v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 382 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), as authority for his position that summary judgment was improperly entered in the instant case. In Squitieri, however, there was an [*168] issue as to whether plaintiffs knowledge of a latent defect was less than the defendant’s…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)