U-HAUL COMPANY OF NORTHERN FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NINA M. WHITE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN GREGORY WHITE, DECEASED, FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., RESPONDENTS; U-HAUL COMPANY OF NORTHERN FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONER, V. CHRIS WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LLOYD H. WHITE, DECEASED, FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., RESPONDENTS; U-HAUL COMPANY OF NORTHERN FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONER, V. RAYMOND DRIGGERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF IRA DRIGGERS, DECEASED, FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., RESPONDENTS; FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ET AL., PETITIONER, V. NINA M. WHITE, ETC., RESPONDENT; FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ET AL., PETITIONER, V. CHRIS WHITE, ETC., RESPONDENT; FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ET AL., PETITIONER, V. RAYMOND DRIGGERS, ETC., RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consolidation Of Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The respondents, Nina M. White, Chris White, and Raymond Driggers are plaintiffs in the trial court who have each filed a wrongful death action against petitioners, U-Haul Company of Northern Florida, Inc. and Fleetwood Motor Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., as codefendants. Although the three actions arose from the same incident, are identical in all respects except damages, and involve the same counsel for all parties, the trial court denied petitioner U-Haul’s motion for consolidation and scheduled the cases for trial on three separate dates before three different trial judges. We find that the possibility of inconsistent verdicts and the interests of judicial economy outweigh any prejudice which might arise from a delay caused by consolidation of these cases. See Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Therefore, the petitions for writ of certiorari filed by petitioners U-Haul and Fleetwood are hereby granted and the trial court’s order denying U-Haul’s motion to consolidate for trial is quashed.
SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Palm BAY v. State, 588 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…een the same parties involving common questions of law or fact. Consolidation is favored in such situations in the interest of judicial economy, and to avoid the possibility of inconsistent verdicts. U-Haul of [*629] Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johnson v. Johnson, 454 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wilson v. Wahl, 383 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The controversy between the parties to this appeal satisfies the criteria for consolidation, in the sense that the chall…
-
Barnes v. Meece, 530 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ilability of a remedy on plenary appeal supported the decision by this court to grant the petition for writ of certiorari and direct the trial court to order consolidation of the two cases. See also U-Haul Company of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Petitioner argues that the same possibility of inconsistent verdicts, incapable of remedy on appeal, exists in this case. However, petitioner has available the recourse of…
-
Hickey v. Pompano K OF C, Inc., 647 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…a single accident, on the grounds that there could be inconsistent verdicts. See Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Meyers v. Shore Indus., Inc., 575 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although there is dicta in Cogan v. Saleeby, 454 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) to the effect that the possibility of inconsistent verdicts would not be a basis f…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tommie v. LaCHANCE, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)