BRITTANY VILLEGAS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL VILLEGAS AND SHEILA VILLEGAS, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
We affirm the final summary judgment. See Snow v. Nelson, 475 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1985); Carey v. Reeve, 56 Wash.App. 18, 781 P. 2d 904, 908 (1989) (‘Whether the duty owed by the [grandparents] to third parties was either as parents, standing in loco parentis; a duty created by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316 [parent’s duty to control child’s conduct]; a ‘special relationship’ duty created by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315; or even under a duty because they voluntarily assumed responsibility for the child, the standard is the same.”)
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Brittany suffered partial amputation and disfigurement of her hand when she unwittingly (she was two years old) stuck her hand into the spinning wheel of an exercise bicycle being operated by another child, age five. Appellees were in charge of earing for the children, were in control of the exercise bicycle and were aware of the danger posed by the bicycle in the presence of little children.
In my opinion the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against the child and her parents. There are serious questions of fact left unresolved and only a jury should rule on those disputed issues of material fact. It is reasonably foreseeable that a 5 year old child will climb upon a stationary bicycle and pedal it, if allowed to do so. It is also reasonably foreseeable that a two year old will be fascinated by a shiny spinning wheel and reach out to touch it. The caretakers of these children are alleged to have failed to act reasonably to prevent this accident and injuries. This case is hardly distinguishable from Springtree Properties, Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1997) as it relates to the issue regarding foreseeability. Brittany and her parents should not be denied their rightful recompense.
I would reverse the summary judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Okeechobee Health Care & Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Collins, 726 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ss the interpretation is clearly erroneous. “[A]n agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to great deference.” Ameristeel Corp. v. Clark, 691 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla.1997). Accord Morris v. Division of Retirement, 696 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Braman Cadillac, Inc. v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 584 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); PAC for Equality v. Department of State, Fla. Elections Comm’n, 542 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); PW Ventures,…
-
McGANN v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 803 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ated section 106.19(l)(b), because he did in fact report the campaign contributions, albeit tardily. As definitively construed by the Florida Elections Commission, however, the statute requires timely reporting. See Morris v. Division of Retirement, 696 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Although ‘judicial adherence to the agency’s view is not demanded when it is contrary to the statute’s plain meaning,’ an administrative agency’s construction of a statute it administers ‘should be accorded great deference…
-
S. States Utils. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 714 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…92 A. 2d 372, 374-75 (1991)(footnote omitted). We reach the same conclusion here on what is perhaps a firmer statutory foundation. In doing so, we adopt the PSC’s own interpretation of statutes it .administers. See Morris v. Division of Retirement, 696 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The PSC has set uniform rates in other eases involving multiple systems. See In re Application of Jacksonville Suburban Utils. Corp., 93 F.P.S.C. 10:133, 137 (1993) (“[Ujniformity may result in cost savings due to a reduction in…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1997)
- Snow v. Nelson, 475 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1985)