ARMELLINI EXPRESS LINES, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DARRELL T. SEXTON, JR., ETC., ET AL., 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.
Darrell Sexton, Jr. sought to use a jury verdict from a prior accident case to establish negligence against Armellini and others in a separate lawsuit through estoppel by judgment. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that a verdict alone cannot serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment without a final judgment.
A verdict without a final judgment is generally inadequate to serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment. Because there was no judgment against the appellants in the prior suit, estoppel by judgment could not apply, and the trial court's partial summary judgment was improper.
[1] A verdict alone, without a final judgment, is generally insufficient to serve as a basis for collateral estoppel (estoppel by judgment).
[2] A prior settlement and voluntary dismissal of claims against a party, prior to the entry of a final judgment, prevents that party from being subject to collateral estoppe…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There was no judgment in the prior suit against the appellants that could serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment in this case. Generally, a final judgment is necessary to serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment.”
Establishes the core holding that a final judgment, not a mere verdict, is required for estoppel by judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA three-vehicle accident occurred on I-95 in smoke or fog. William Carver's Armellini tractor-trailer was stopped, hit by a Ploof truck driven by Royc…
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 Loss Of Services cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This case arose from a three-vehicle accident that occurred on 1-95 at night with smoke or fog covering the highway. William Carver was driving an Armellini tractor-trailer rig and stopped in the smoke or fog while on the highway. Royce Stone was driving a Ploof truck and ran into the rear of the Armellini tractor-trailer. Irene Mackey, now Irene Sexton, was driving an automobile with her son, Darrell Sexton, Jr., as a passenger in the middle front seat. Patrick White was also a passenger in the Sexton vehicle. The Sexton automobile slid underneath the Armellini tractor-trailer. Patrick White filed suit against Armelli-ni, Carver, Ploof, and Stone in a prior suit. Irene Mackey (Sexton) was apparently added as a party plaintiff in that suit. In that prior suit, the jury returned a verdict which found that William Carver was one hundred percent negligent for any damage caused to Irene Mackey (Sexton), and that she herself was zero percent negligent. Armellini and Carver then settled the claim in return for a release and voluntary dismissal prior to the entry of a final judgment against them. Therefore, the final judgment entered in that case included the verdict findings with regard to Irene Mackey (Sexton) and Wil liam Carver, but did not enter judgment against Armellini and Carver in favor of Irene Mackey (Sexton).
Subsequently, Darrell Sexton, Jr., filed this suit against Armellini, William Carver, Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., Ploof Truck Lines and Royce Stone for the injuries he sustained in the accident. His mother, Irene (Mackey) Sexton, sued for loss of services and medical expenses arising from the injuries to her son, Darrell Sexton, Jr. Darrell Sexton, Jr., moved for a partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence based on estoppel by judgment due to the verdict in the prior suit. The trial court granted the partial summary judgment for Darrell Sexton, Jr., against Armellini, Carver and Bankers & Shippers. It is this final partial summary judgment which is being appealed.
There was no judgment in the prior suit against the appellants that could serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment in this case. Generally, a final judgment is necessary to serve as the basis for estoppel by judgment. See Donnell v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Co., 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Edwards v. Kings Point Housing Corp., 351 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Thoman v. Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 177 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1965). Here there was only a verdict, and a verdict without a judgment is generally inadequate as a basis for estoppel by judgment. 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 614 (1947).
Since there was no judgment against the appellants, we do not reach the issue of whether Florida should recognize the offensive use (as opposed to defensive use) of estoppel by judgment.
REVERSED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Express, Inc. v. Myriam Acosta, 397 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e of how the first order is labeled. Chipola Nurseries, Inc. v. Div. of Admin., Dept. of Transp., 335 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). . The principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel would not apply. Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Donnell v. Industrial Fire and Casualty Co., 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Edwards v. Kings Point Housing Corporation, 351 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).…
-
Robinson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 583 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…987); U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Clearwater Oaks Bank, 421 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Appellants cogently point out that this interlocutory order cannot be infused with such res judi-cata effect. See Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). At most, this order might serve as some evidence that State Farm’s position in the underlying case was not utterly without any record basis. . Interestingly, at trial, the judge engaged counsel in a dialogue about why he had de…
-
Lewis v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 427 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…a part of the complaint, so it can be considered for this purpose. However, a jury verdict is not an adjudication, and a judgment is essential to the operation of either res judicata or estoppel by judgment. Armellini Express Lines, Inc. v. Sexton, 384 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); 32 Fla. Jur.2d, Judgments and Decrees, sec. 126. [*255] Since no judgment appears on the face of the complaint and there was nothing before the trial judge at that stage of the proceeding to indicate that a final judgment had be…
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
- Maltzman v. Pickett, 378 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Edwards v. Kings Point Hous. Corp., 351 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Thoman v. Timmothy Ashley, 177 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1965)
- In the name of the State of Fla. upon the relation of Jack E. Hammock v. Kennedy, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Thoman v. Timmothy Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)