ANDRE F. MATHIAS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LEONNE MATHIAS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIROYAL, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-10-10
No. 89-392
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.
549 So. 2d 1154 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Following an automobile accident, a passenger in the vehicle brought an action against the manufacturer of the automobile tires. The representative of the deceased driver likewise instituted an action against the manufacturer of the tires. The manufacturer resisted consolidation of the causes. Thereafter the passenger’s case was tried and resulted in a verdict for the manufacturer, which was affirmed on appeal. See Laurent v. Uniroyal, Inc., 515 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1987). The defendant then moved for and secured a summary judgment against the action brought on behalf of the deceased driver and the trial court entered a final summary judgment holding that “judgment by estoppel” precluded the estate action on behalf of the driver. We reverse upon the following authority. See Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503, 505 (Fla.1956); Dudley v. Carroll, 467 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 352 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Martin v. Arrow Cabs, 107 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958);

The summary judgment under review is hereby reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for a trial on the merits.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Selz, 637 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
    …position.” Id. The party against whom collateral estoppel is sought must have been a party in the previous action. Compare Dixie Auto, 588 So. 2d at 68 and Hochstadt, 588 So. 2d at 51 and Verhagen, 552 So. 2d at 1162 with Mathias v. Uniroyal, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, identity of parties is irrelevant for the application of defensive collateral estoppel based on the policy reasons recited in Blonder-Tongue, subject to its foregoing admonitions. See also Freehling v. MGIC Fin. Cor…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw