PEDRO MARQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DORIS MARQUEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HEIM CORPORATION AND WINFIELD L. KELLY, 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.
Court reversed summary judgment for defendant Kelly in a workplace injury case, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding Kelly's knowledge of safety hazards and whether his conduct constituted gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment is precluded where conflicting evidence exists regarding whether the defendant knew of safety problems and whether his conduct amounted to gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard.
[1] Where evidence is conflicting regarding a defendant's knowledge of safety hazards and whether conduct constitutes gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard, summar…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[W]here the line separating simple and gross negligence is doubtful or indistinct, the question of whether the negligence is ordinary or gross is one which should be submitted to the jury.”
Court cited Courtney v. Florida Transformer, Inc. for the principle that jury determination is required when gross negligence is unclear.
Pedro Marquez severed his index finger while operating an unguarded press brake machine at Warren Manufacturing; Marquez presented evidence that Kelly…
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 Willful And Wanton Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
While operating a press brake machine at Warren Manufacturing, Pedro Marquez severed his index finger.1 The press brake involved lacked point-of-operation guards. Marquez filed an action against Winfield Kelly, the president of the company, alleging willful or wanton conduct or gross negligence. Marquez presented evidence that Kelly was responsible for the safety of the work area but failed to install safety devices despite his knowledge of prior press brake injuries to other employees. He presented expert testimony that the regular use of a brake press without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant. We reverse.
A summary judgment cannot stand where genuine issues, of material fact exist. Sun Chevrolet v. Crespo, 613 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this case the evidence is conflicting with regal'd to whether Kelly knew about the safety problems and whether his conduct amounted to gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for Marquez’s safety. Summary judgment is therefore precluded. See, e.g., Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Sys. Inc., 601 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Courtney v. Florida Transformer, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“[Wjhere the line separating simple and gross negligence is doubtful or indistinct, the question of whether the negligence is ordinary or gross is one which should be submitted to the jury.”); Laderman v. Mester, 510 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded.
. The incident occurred Oct. 13, 1986.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vallejos v. LAN Cargo S.A., 116 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ngs, constituted an imminent or clear and present danger. The affidavit simply stated that Infinity failed to maintain a safe workplace. This is not helpful in distinguishing between negligence and gross negligence. See, e.g., Marquez v. Heim Corp., 632 So. 2d 85, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (reversing summary judgment because plaintiff’s expert testified that using the machine without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator). . See Bakerman v. Bombay Co., 961 So. 2d 259, 265 (Fla.2007) (holdin…
-
Castellano v. Raynor, 725 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…construe facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Courtney v. Florida Transformer, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). A summary judgment cannot stand where genuine issues of material fact exist. See Marquez v. Heim Corp., 632 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Here the facts of the accident are undisputed. Appellant and appellee were friends and coworkers at Graham Elementary School. On the day of the accident, appellee was waiting for his next class to arrive at the physical education…
-
Kennedy v. Moree, 650 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…igence from gross negligence is doubtful or indistinct, the question of whether the negligence is ordinary or gross should be submitted to the jury. We agree with that general statement of the law. It should also be noted that Marquez v. Heim Corp., 632 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Systems, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), relied on by plaintiff, involved the standard of gross negligence and not culpable negligence. If the issues in this case were to be governed by…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Courtney v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Sys., Inc., 601 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- SUN Chevrolet, Inc. v. Crespo, 613 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Laderman v. Mester, 510 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)