LLOYD FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLEET SUPPLY, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Lloyd Freeman appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of Fleet Supply, Inc., which had repaired Freeman's truck brakes two months before they failed, causing Freeman's injuries. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that Fleet Supply failed to carry its initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding proximate cause.
Fleet Supply failed to carry its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment. Freeman's inability to precisely identify the cause of the brake failure did not conclusively demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, as his failure to point to a specific defect could be attributed to his limited knowledge of brake systems rather than to the nonexistence of a defect.
[1] A movant for summary judgment carries the burden of conclusively establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] The opposing party is not obligated to present evidence of remaining issues until the movant has met its initial burden on summary judgment.
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“On a motion for a summary judgment, the movant carries the considerable burden of showing conclusively that there is no genuine issue of material fact.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment motions and the movant's burden of proof
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreeman brought suit against Fleet Supply for injuries sustained when brakes failed on a truck he was driving. Fleet Supply had performed brake repair…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
MINER, Judge.
Appellant, Lloyd Freeman, appeals from a summary judgment which was entered in favor of appellee, Fleet Supply, Inc. Because we find that Fleet Supply, as the movant, failed to carry its initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact, we reverse.
Freeman brought suit against Fleet Supply seeking damages for injuries sustained when the brakes failed on the truck he was driving. In his amended complaint, Freeman alleged that Fleet Supply repaired the brakes two months prior to the accident and, as a result of negligent brake repair, Freeman was injured when he was unable to stop the truck. Recovery was sought on theories of negligence, warranty and strict liability. Fleet Supply denied the substantive allegations of the complaint, asserted several affirmative defenses, and moved for summary judgment.
In its summary judgment motion, Fleet Supply asserted that the undisputed facts, as found in Freeman’s amended complaint and deposition, failed to establish proximate cause between the accident and the brake repairs. The deposition testimony of Freeman, which was the basis for the summary judgment motion, established that Freeman had performed a routine brake inspection prior to the accident and found the brakes in working order. More importantly, Freeman stated that he did not know what caused the brake failure. At his deposition, Freeman readily admitted that his knowledge of brake systems was limited to “basic issues about brake pressure” which he learned in truck driving school. The trial court granted Fleet Supply’s motion for summary judgment, and this appeal followed.
On a motion for a summary judgment, the movant carries the considerable burden of showing conclusively that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Williams v. Bevis, 509 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Until it is determined that the movant has successfully met this burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that there are issues remaining to be tried. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966).
We agree with Freeman that Fleet Supply failed to carry its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment. Freeman’s inability to precisely identify the cause of the brake failure at his deposition, did not mean that Fleet Supply had conclusively demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. We are required to view every possible inference in Freeman’s favor. See Wills, supra. When so viewed, it is clear that Freeman’s failure to point to a specific defect in the brakes is as easily attributable to his limited knowledge of brake systems as it is to the nonexistence of a defect. Certainly, Freeman’s testimony did not leave the facts “so crystallized that nothing remain[ed] but questions of law.” Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WIGGINTON and ALLEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spradley v. Doctor Michael O. Stick & Hamilton Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…lee was not entitled to summary judgment. Until it is determined that the mov-ant has successfully met its initial burden, the opposing party is under no obligation to show that there are issues remaining to be tried. Freeman v. Fleet Supply, Inc., 565 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA1990) (citing Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966)). Thus, the trial judge also erred in ruling that appellant’s response to Dr. Zorn’s affidavit was insufficient to preclude entry of summary judgment for appellee. Moreover, t…
-
Johnson v. Deep S. Crane Rentals, Inc., 634 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…o the adequacy of the truck’s lighting as a substantial cause of the accident, we conclude that the appellees failed to meet the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of genuine issues of material fact. See, e.g., Freeman v. Fleet Supply, Inc., 565 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Furthermore, any doubt as to the merits of the appellees’ motion should have been dispelled by the affidavits in opposition. Johnson unequivocally stated that the truck was either not lit or so poorly lit that it could not…
-
Budweiser-Busch Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Keystone Lines, 607 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…as a matter of law on the record presented. The numerous depositions and other documents contained in the record clearly raise several disputed issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment in this case. See Freeman v. Fleet Supply Inc., 565 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) and Zygmont v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Those genuine issues of material fact include: Whether the lease agree [*506] ment between Budweiser and Guadalupe was in effect at the time of the accident; whether, if t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Williams v. Russell R. Bevis & the Fla. Nat'l Bank, 509 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)