SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD, INC. ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
ELSIE GOFORTH, 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.
Seaboard System Railroad appealed a summary judgment ruling that discharged a truck owner and driver from contribution liability based on good faith settlement releases executed by the wrongful death beneficiaries and injury claimants. The court affirmed, holding that the substantial settlement amounts and deposition evidence established good faith as a matter of law, making summary judgment appropriate.
Summary judgment was proper because there was affirmative, competent, admissible evidence of good faith (substantial settlement amounts totaling $499,901 and deposition testimony) and no competent evidence of bad faith or collusion, making good faith a matter of law rather than a genuine issue of material fact.
[1] A settlement amount that is substantial, when considered with other evidence, can constitute affirmative evidence of good faith in giving releases that discharge tortfeas…
[2] Summary judgment is proper when there is affirmative, competent, admissible evidence supporting one side of an issue of fact and no competent admissible evidence to the c…
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“When, as here, there exists affirmative, competent, admissible evidence as to one side of an issue of fact, and no competent admissible evidence to the contrary is properly before the court, summary judgment is proper.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment on factual issues and applies it to the good faith determination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoforth was killed and the Harleys were injured when a garbage truck crashed into their disabled vehicle parked on the shoulder of State Road 50, appr…
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 Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Goforth was looking under the hood of the Harleys' stranded vehicle, parked on the shoulder of S. R. 50 about 500 feet west of a Seaboard Railroad crossing when a garbage truck, owned by Hatchers and operated by Leaf, crashed into the rear of the Harleys’ vehicle injuring the Harleys and killing Goforth. For a structured wrongful death settlement of $350,051 with Goforth’s survivors, and a $134,043.50 settlement with John Harley and a $15,806.50 settlemént with Janice Harley, the Goforth estate and the Harleys gave the truck driver and owner releases. The Goforth estate and the Harleys then sued Seaboard. Seaboard filed a third-party action for contribution pursuant to section 768.31, Florida Statutes, against the truck owner (Hatch-ers) and driver (Leaf).
The truck owner and driver pleaded that the Goforth and Harley releases were given in good faith and discharged them from contribution to Seaboard under section 768.31(5), Florida Statutes. On the issue of good faith, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the truck owner and driver. Seaboard appeals, arguing that the good faith of Goforth and the Harleys in giving their releases is essentially a question of intent not properly resolved on a motion for summary judgment, citing cases such as Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. Simmons, 375 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1980) and Sobik’s Sandwich Shops, Inc. v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
However, in each of those cases, there were substantial damages ($60,000 in Metropolitan and $83,186.96 in Sobik’s) and the appellate court in those cases held in effect that the tort victim’s settlement with one of several tortfeasors for $1000 was, under the circumstances, some evidence of bad faith. This is an entirely different case. The amount of the settlements, for which the releases were given in this case, was substantial, totaling $499,-901, and constitutes some evidence of good faith. The deposition of the settling parties constitutes other evidence of good faith.
At the hearing before the trial court on a motion for summary judgment, there was, thus, affirmative evidence that the releases were given in good faith and there was no evidence of collusion or any other evidence of bad faith. Under this state of the evidence, the summary judgment was proper. When, as here, there exists affirmative, competent, admissible evidence as to one side of an issue of fact, and no competent admissible evidence1 to the contrary is properly before the court, summary judgment is proper. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . As distinguished from argument, rhetoric, speculation, and contentions of counsel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kransco, 641 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…onal Action Sports, Inc. v. Sabellico, 573 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 583 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.1991). This good faith, however, consists of a good faith determination of relative liabilities. Id. See Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc. v. Goforth, 545 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989) (substantial settlement for which release was given was evidence of good faith). Kransco and Wal-Mart can establish bad faith without resort to privileged communications or evidence. Kran…
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Shure, 647 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…lusive when it is aimed to injure the interest of an absent tortfeasor.” River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court for County of Yolo, 26 Cal.App.3d 986, 103 Cal.Rptr. 498 (Cal. 3d DCA 1972). 355 So. 2d at 211. In Seaboard System R.R. v. Goforth, 545 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the settling tortfeasor rear-ended a vehicle, killing one person and injuring two others. After he settled for approximately $500,000 the non-settling tortfeasor sought contribution from him. The fifth district affirmed a summar…
-
DAN & Sherman, M.D., P.A. v. Serrano, 578 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ermination of the proper apportionment on a claimant’s settlements when one party settles with a party alleged to be negligent, without consideration or consent with one jointly responsible. See and compare Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. v. Goforth, 545 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); City of Tamarac v. Garchar, 398 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), overruled on other grounds. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly indicated, in fixing a contingent percentage recovery, that the percentage will not be applied to…
Authorities Cited
- Irving W. Landers et ux. v. Adelle L. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979)
- Sobik's Sandwich Shops, Inc. v. Davis, 371 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Transit Auth. & William B. Houston v. Zeter Mae Simmons, 375 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)