WILLIAM T. ROBERTS AS PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
BRENDA STOKLEY, ETC., 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 court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the plaintiff because the defendant failed to present sufficient counter-evidence.
The plaintiff sued the Sheriff alleging negligence in failing to prevent her husband's suicide in jail. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, argu…
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.
Stokley’s husband committed suicide in the Pinellas County jail. Stokley sued Roberts, the Pinellas County Sheriff, contending that the Sheriff “negligently, recklessly or willfully, failed to take the precautions or make the supervision necessary in the exercise of reasonable care to prevent Mark Stokley from injuring himself when [the Sheriff] knew or should have known that he was likely to commit suicide.” Subsequently, Stokley moved for summary judgment as to liability contending that the Sheriff’s violation of an administrative rule of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services applicable to the jail constituted negligence per se. The trial court granted the motion and the Sheriff filed this appeal.
We have some reservations over whether the violation of the administrative rule constituted negligence per se; we need not reach that issue, however. Stokley submitted several affidavits in support of her motion for summary judgment. These established that the Sheriff was negligent in failing to follow a physician’s instructions on precautions designed to prohibit Stok-ley’s husband from committing suicide, and that the Sheriff’s negligence was a legal cause of Stokley’s death.
The Sheriff failed to contravene these affidavits. As stated in Perry v. Langstaff, 383 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), “[o]nce the movant for summary judgment has met his initial burden of tendering competent evidence demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue.” Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact remained for the trier of fact. Consequently, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Stokley. We affirm.
SCHEB, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Leonard M. Boyar, 592 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ve defenses appear to create genuine issues of material fact, and thus Leonard’s revocation of his 1978 will constitutes a breach of the valid 1978 contract, and entitles the appellees to the summary judgments being reviewed. See Roberts v. Stokley, 388 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 394 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, the judgments are AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, HERSEY and DELL, JJ„ concur.…
-
First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Maurer, 597 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…note. Although Maurer's pro se answer may have attempted to raise [*431] material issues of fact, partial summary-judgment for First Union would have been appropriate since its pleadings were not countered by competent evidence. Roberts v. Stokley, 388 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 394 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1981). The trial court’s disposition is not necessarily inconsistent with this conclusion. Implicit in the term “deficiency judgment” is a finding that liability was not an issue in the case. See…
-
Tampa Port Auth. v. Tampa Barge Servs., Inc., 463 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…has met his initial burden of tendering competent evidence demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue. Roberts v. Stokley, 388 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), quoting from Perry v. Langstaff, 383 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Southern Rambler Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., 375 F. 2d 932, 937 (5th Cir.1967). Griffin Builders Supply, Inc. v. Jones, 384 So. 2d 265…
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
- Perry v. J. M. Langstaff, M.D., 383 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)