MARY A. SPROUL AND ROSE C. SPROUL, APPELLANTS,
v.
MCDONALD'S SYSTEMS, INC., A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA; LEHN, INC., A DISSOLVED CORPORATION D/B/A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT; THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; AND JAY BUCHBINDER INDUSTRIES OF CALIFORNIA, 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.
The court held that collateral estoppel and estoppel by judgment defenses cannot typically be raised on a motion to dismiss.
Appellants sued for negligence, and a third-party complaint was filed. After partial summary judgments, the third-party defendant moved for summary ju…
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 Estoppel By Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Sproul, sued McDonald’s Systems, Inc., and others for various acts of negligence having to do with the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of a table in the McDonald’s restaurant. McDonald’s filed a third party complaint against appellee Buchbinder, the manufacturer of the table, alleging like acts of negligence, and seeking contribution pursuant to Section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1979).
After McDonald’s and the other defendants obtained a partial summary judgment against the Sprouls on the aforementioned acts of negligence alleged in the complaint, Buchbinder moved for summary judgment on the third party complaint and prevailed. The Sprouls then filed an amended complaint against the original defendants and Buchbinder. The allegations of negligence against Buchbinder were similar to those contained in the third party complaint between McDonald’s and Buchbinder. A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the grounds of collateral estoppel and estoppel by judgment was filed by Buchbinder and granted with prejudice. The Sprouls seek reversal of that order. Ordinarily collateral estoppel and estoppel by judgment cannot be raised on motion to dismiss but must be pleaded as affirmative defenses. Moskovits v. Moskovits, 112 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The wisdom of that rule is clearly demonstrated in this case. In its present posture we are unable to determine the basis of the court’s rulings on either of the summary judgments heretofore entered and that might become vital in determining whether the defenses raised are valid.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment appealed from and remand the cause for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. Hosp., Ltd. v. State, 697 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…requires examination of extrinsic evidence (the pleadings and judgments in the prior litigation), rather than simply the four corners of the complaint. See Moskovits v. Moskovits, 112 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Sprout v. McDonald’s Sys., Inc., 397 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). More importantly, the gravamen of UH’s complaint is that AHCA has perpetrated an injustice to it based upon its allegedly fluid interpretation of the term “single premises” vis-a-vis “separate premises.” UH readily acknowledges…
-
The Dep't OF Transp. v. The City OF Miami, 417 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…n. The dismissal was improperly predicated upon affirmative defenses which may not be asserted in a motion to dismiss. Hough v. Menses, 95 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1957); Vaswani v. Ganobsek, 402 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sproul v. McDonald’s Systems, 397 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); In re Estate of Donner, 364 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fontaine-bleau Hotel Gorp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 172 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Moskovits v. Moskovits, 112 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1…
Authorities Cited
- Moskovits v. Moskovits, 112 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)