ORANGE BLOSSOM HILLS, INC. AND HOMETTE CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAZEL ROTHWELL VICE AND CHARLES B. VICE, 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.
Orange Blossom Hills and Homette Corporation appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss or transfer a personal injury case for improper venue. The court reversed, finding that venue in Dade County was improper because all relevant witnesses and events were located in Lake and Marion Counties, and the defendants lacked significant presence in Dade County.
Venue in Dade County was improper. The appropriate forum would be either Lake County or Marion County where all witnesses regarding design, manufacture, and maintenance of the mobile home would reside. The court reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to allow plaintiffs to elect transfer to either Lake County or Marion County, or dismiss without prejudice.
[1] A court may transfer venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses when the cause of action arose in a different county than where the suit was filed.
[2] Venue is improper when the defendant has no employees, agents, facilities, or representatives in the county where the action was filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The injury occurred in Lake County, allegedly because of negligence in the design or manufacture of the mobile home in Marion County. The defendant-manufacturer is situated in Marion County. The defendant-seller operates in Lake County and sold the mobile home in Lake County, although it also has an office in Broward County, Florida.”
Establishes the geographic facts demonstrating improper venue in Dade County
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazel and Charles Vice sued for personal injuries from alleged formaldehyde gas exposure in a mobile home manufactured by Homette Corporation (an Indi…
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 Convenience Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants in the trial court, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. and Homette Corporation, bring this interlocutory appeal from orders denying their motion to dismiss or to transfer for improper venue.
An action was instituted by Hazel and Charles Vice for personal injuries arising out of a claimed injurious exposure to formaldehyde gas while living in a mobile home in Lake County, which home was manufactured by defendant Homette and sold by defendant Orange Blossom. The defendants moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue on the bases (a) that Hom-ette is an Indiana corporation with Ocala, Marion County, as its principal place of business in Florida; (b) that the mobile home was manufactured in Ocala; (c) that the mobile home was shipped to Leesburg, Lake County, a distance of about 25 miles; (d) that the mobile home was sold in Lees-burg; (e) that the mobile home was financed by a Leesburg bank; (f) that Hom-ette has no employees, agents, facilities or representatives in Dade County; (g) that Orange Blossom has its principal place of business in Broward County and has not had a business office in Dade County since September 10, 1980,1 nor does it have agents, representatives or employees in Dade County.
We reverse. The injury occurred in Lake County, allegedly because of negligence in the design or manufacture of the mobile home in Marion County. The defendant-manufacturer is situated in Marion County. The defendant-seller operates in Lake County and sold the mobile home in Lake County, although it also has an office in Broward County, Florida. For the convenience of the parties, the appropriate forum would be either Lake County or Marion County, as all the witnesses as to design and manufacture and/or maintenance of the mobile home would reside in either of these two counties (which are adjoining counties). Peterson, Howell and Heather v. O’Neill, 814 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. Moore, 355 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Kilpatrick v. Boynton, 374 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Sec. 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979).
Reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to allot the plaintiffs a limited time to make an election to have the cause transferred to either Lake County or Marion County, and in lieu thereof the cause should be dismissed without prejudice.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. The filing of the complaint was subsequent to September 10, 1980.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SUN Bank OF Ocala v. Int'l Harvester Co., 408 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…njury occurred, when 95 of the 99 witnesses listed by the plaintiffs live outside of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and 80 witnesses either live in the county where the accident occurred or in nearby counties. See: Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Vice, 402 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Kilpatrick v. Boynton, 374 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. Moore, 355 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, 3…
Authorities Cited
- Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- The Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Noreene Moore, 355 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kilpatrick v. Jayne S. Boynton, 374 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- S.C. Ins. Co. v. Pasalodos, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- The HERTZ Corp. v. Rentz, 326 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)