FLORENCE HICKEY, PETITIONER,
v.
POMPANO K OF C, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENT
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.
A plaintiff sought certiorari review of an order severing her trials against two defendants in separate slip-and-fall accidents. The court granted certiorari and ordered the cases tried together, finding that severance departed from the essential requirements of law because separate trials could result in inconsistent verdicts regarding apportionment of damages with no adequate remedy by appeal.
The court granted certiorari and quashed the severance order, holding that separate trials would depart from the essential requirements of law because they could result in inconsistent verdicts regarding apportionment of damages for which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal, and the cases must be tried together.
[1] Severing trials arising from separate but related accidents, where injuries are alleged to be overlapping and not easily apportionable, may constitute a departure from th…
[2] Separate trials of claims arising from successive accidents may lead to inconsistent verdicts and obstruct justice, particularly when the injuries from each accident are…
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“If ... it appears that negligence of both defendants contributed proximately to cause an injury for which plaintiff is entitled to recover, it may be a matter entailing great difficulty of proof as to the amount in which each defendant is responsible .... To require separate actions and separate trials in such a situation would enhance the difficulties of proof and tend to obstruct, rather than to promote, justice”
Establishes the core principle that separate trials in cases involving overlapping non-apportionable injuries create difficulty in determining fault allocation and obstruct justice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed an amended complaint against two defendants arising from separate slip-and-fall accidents occurring three weeks apart. She alleged…
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Plaintiff/petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order severing her trial against defen dant A from her trial against defendant B. We grant certiorari and order that her cases be tried together, because the Florida supreme court, in a ease on all fours, concluded that ordering separate trials was a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. Lawrence v. Hethcox, 283 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1973).
Plaintiffs amended complaint includes claims against defendant A and defendant B, resulting from separate slip and fall accidents occurring three weeks apart. She alleges that the first fall on A’s premises injured her knee and made her more susceptible to falling on B’s premises, and that the second fall aggravated her initial knee injury. She argues that separate trials could result in inconsistent verdicts for which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. In Lawrence, plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile accident and later sought to amend to add another defendant with whom he was involved in a second accident about six weeks later.' Plaintiff alleged that the injuries from both accidents were overlapping and not apportionable, and if the cases were tried separately each defendant might be able to convince the jury that the injuries were caused by the other defendant. The trial court denied joinder, the appellate court denied certiorari, and our supreme court reversed, holding that the denial of joinder departed from the essential requirements of law for which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. The court adopted the reasoning of a California court:
If ... it appears that negligence of both defendants contributed proximately to cause an injury for which plaintiff is entitled to recover, it may be a matter entailing great difficulty of proof as to the amount in which each defendant is responsible .... To require separate actions and separate trials in such a situation would enhance the difficulties of proof and tend to obstruct, rather than to promote, justice
Lawrence, 283 So. 2d at 43 (quoting Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal.2d 124, 148 P. 2d 23 (1944)).
Also, our entire opinion in Millman v. Reid, 511 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), was as follows:
We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and direct the trial court to consolidate these two (2) cases involving claims of injury by the same person in two accidents occurring two weeks apart.
Here, if these cases are tried separately, the jury in the trial arising out of the first accident could well be persuaded that most of the damages resulted from the second accident, and a different jury could determine in the trial arising out of the second accident that most of the damages resulted from the first accident. Since a low verdict, in and of itself, does not require a new trial, it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff would be able to get post-trial or appellate relief. Plaintiff would thus have no adequate remedy by appeal.
We have previously granted certiorari where a trial court has refused to consolidate cases brought by different plaintiffs against one defendant, as a result of a single accident, on the grounds that there could be inconsistent verdicts. See Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Meyers v. Shore Indus., Inc., 575 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Although there is dicta in Cogan v. Saleeby, 454 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) to the effect that the possibility of inconsistent verdicts would not be a basis for certiorari review by this court, that case is distinguishable on its facts, because it involved the trial court’s severance of a suit to recover compensation for legal services from a counterclaim for legal malpractice. We remain of the opinion that our conclusion in that case was correct, however, the dicta regarding inconsistent verdicts may have been overly broad.
We therefore grant certiorari and quash the order of severance.
DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hemingway v. Bresney, 733 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ilar injuries so that it may be difficult or impossible to apportion the injuries between the two tortfea-sors, both claims may be joined in a single action. See Lawrence v. Hethcox, 283 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1973); see also Hickey v. Pompano K of C, Inc., 647 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Hemingway’s complaint did not allege that the injuries caused by the two accidents were the same or similar, or that they were difficult or impossible to apportion between Bresney and Lewinstein. Absent such allegations, it is c…
-
Friedman v. DeSOTO Park N. Condo. Ass'n, 678 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…393] consistent verdicts” would result in a manifest injustice and a material injury to the petitioner. See, e.g., Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We agree with the dissent that Tommie and Hickey v. Pompano K of C, Inc., 647 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), represent two types of cases where the standard for certiorari jurisdiction was met. We disagree that this case falls within that same category. We frankly do not see consolidation and a joint trial to be the most appropriate c…1 / 2
-
Tracey v. Swanholm Cent., LLC, 223 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…interests of judicial economy and the possibility of inconsistent verdicts outweigh any prejudice that might be caused by a delay when the cases were consolidated. Id. In a case factually similar to the present case, Hickey v. Pompano K of C, Inc., 647 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the complaint alleged that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of two separate slip and fall accidents occurring three weeks apart. The plaintiff alleged that the first fall injured her knee and made her more suscep…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tommie v. LaCHANCE, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Lawrence v. Hethcox, 283 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1973)
- U-Haul Co. OF N. Fla., Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Millman v. Reid, 511 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Grover v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 511 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Cogan v. Saleeby, 454 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Meyers v. Shore Indus., Inc., 575 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)