HIALEAH HOTEL, INC. AND RAMADA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDDIE TALLEY AND JERRY WOODS, 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.
The court dismissed an appeal of a jury verdict finding hotel defendants liable for injuries to plaintiffs who were robbed and shot in the hotel parking lot, because the notice of appeal was untimely filed more than thirty days after the verdict. The court expressed strong dicta that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover as a matter of law because they were engaged in an unlawful drug transaction at the time of the incident.
The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed more than thirty days after the jury verdict. Although decided on jurisdictional grounds, the court expressed in dicta that as a matter of law, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover because they were engaged in unlawful conduct and the defendants' alleged negligence was not a legal cause of the injuries and breached no cognizable duty to persons committing crimes on the property.
[1] A notice of appeal filed more than thirty days after a non-final jury verdict determining liability is untimely and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[2] A franchisor is generally not liable for the negligence of its franchisee.
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“the notice of appeal from this non-final jury verdict which determined liability in favor of the plaintiffs was untimely filed more than thirty days after the verdict. Under Meyers v. Metropolitan Dade Co., 748 So.2d 920, 921-22 (Fla.1999), this appeal must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Eddie Talley and Jerry Woods were conducting a drug transaction inside a vehicle in the parking lot of the Hialeah Hotel when they were rob…
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 Franchisor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
As indicated in Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the notice of appeal from this non-final jury verdict which determined liability in favor of the plaintiffs was untimely filed more than thirty days after the verdict. Under Meyers v. Metropolitan Dade Co., 748 So. 2d 920, 921-22 (Fla.1999), this appeal must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.1
This action is taken totally without prejudice to the trial court’s own reconsideration of its existing interlocutory orders which may and should be revisited in the light of our view, which we express — although necessarily by way of dicta — in the strongest possible terms: that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs who, beyond peradventure, were conducting a drug transaction inside a vehicle in the parking lot of the defendants’ hotel when they were robbed and shot by unknown perpetrators, are not entitled to recover. The record— including directly relevant testimony erroneously excluded by the trial court, see Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t, 505 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) — demonstrates that the defendants’ actions in allegedly failing to provide proper lighting and security were not a legal cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, see Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade Co., 438 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), breached no cognizable duty, and created no “zone of risk,” McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1992), to the plaintiffs, who were engaged in the commission of unlawful acts they affirmatively wished to conceal. See Rios v. Junco, 487 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1986); Iber v. R.P.A., Int’l Corp., 585 So. 2d 367, 368 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also Anicet v. Gant, 580 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), review denied, 591 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1991).2 The trial court should quickly put an end to this travesty.
Appeal dismissed.
. The appellants have not secured the reestablishment of the verdict which we ordered in Hialeah Hotel Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), to permit a subsequent timely appeal. In the meantime, as we telegraphed in Hialeah, at note 5, Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) was repealed so that, even if reentered, the verdict as to liability only is no longer subject to appellate review. Compare Hetherington v. Donner, 786 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (court has jurisdiction over order entered and appeal taken prior to January 1, 2001).
. Moreover, and in any case, the defendant-appellant Ramada, which was a mere franchisor of the hotel, was not liable for the negligence claimed. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1995). In addition, the circumstances strongly indicate that the case should be dismissed under the doctrine that a perjurer may not maintain a civil action in Florida. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE HERTZ Corp. v. Bernd Knoechel, 819 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (specially concurring). Although there are many others, a primary reason for our decision is that Knoe-chel’s underlying claim is totally unsupportable. As we did in Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Talley, 790 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), mandamus denied, No. SC01-2077, 816 So. 2d 129 (Fla. March 19, 2002), review denied, No. SC01-1916, 819 So. 2d 140 (Fla. April 26, 2002), I urge the trial judge to reconsider her prior interlocutory orders to the contrary and put…
-
Woods v. Hialeah Hotel, Inc., 884 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ity only. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants then filed two appeals. The first, in Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); and the second, and more relevant one, in Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Talley, 790 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In this second appeal, the Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal as untimely. The Court then proceeded to act as judge, jury and executioner by stating the following, which I quote in its entirety, leaving out all citations: Th…1 / 2
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- McCAIN v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Stahl v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 438 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Mobil OIL Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1995)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Samia Haddock Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't, 505 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Lazara Iber v. R.P.A. Int'l Corp., 585 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Anicet v. Gant, 580 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Hetherington v. Donner, 786 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)