AIDA MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
LETICA CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND VLASIC FOODS INCORPORATED, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendants because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding negligence.
The plaintiff appealed an order denying her motion for a continuance and a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants. The defendants d…
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Aida Martinez, appeals from an order denying her motion to continue hearing on motion for summary judgment, from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, Letica Corporation and Vlasic Foods, Inc., and from an order denying rehearing. We affirm.
We are not unmindful that a summary judgment should be exercised with special caution in negligence actions. U-Haul Co. of East Bay v. Meyer, 586 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Carbajo v. City of Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Vukovich v. Leo, 447 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). However, a summary judgment is properly granted even in negligence cases where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); McCabe v. Walt Disney World Co., 350 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Grall v. Risden, 167 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 174 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1965); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).
In the instant case, the defendants unequivocally demonstrated the absence of negligence on their part. There being no genuine issue as to any material fact, the question of negligence was properly resolved by the trial court, as a matter of law. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Moreover, we find that the plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Cedar Creek Inc., 694 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…r, while a court must exercise special caution in determining negligence eases on summary judgment, it is nevertheless proper where the moving party has met his burden by demonstrating the absence of negligence on its part. Martinez v. Letica Corp., 617 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); McCabe v. Walt Disney World Co., 350 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Notwithstanding the above standard, appellants urge that through the use of circumstantial evidence, issues of fact existed creating an inference of negli…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Grall v. Risden, 174 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1965)
- Grall v. Risden, 167 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- McCABE v. Walt Disney World Co., 350 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Carbajo v. City OF Hialeah, 514 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- U-Haul Co. OF E. BAY v. Meyer, 586 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Vukovich v. LEO, 447 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)