BETTY J. KEA, APPELLANT,
v.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVICE CENTER, AND GENERAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT & NEW TRAILER SALES, INC., BOTH FLORIDA CORPORATIONS; COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, AND ROGER WADSWORTH CLEWORTH, 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 reversed summary judgment in a wrongful death negligence case, finding disputed material facts exist regarding whether Goodyear had an inspection agreement that would excuse the truck driver's failure to inspect a deteriorated tire.
Summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes exist concerning whether Goodyear had an agreement to inspect the tire and whether such agreement would excuse the driver's failure to inspect.
[1] In a negligence action involving a tire blowout, summary judgment is improper when material factual disputes exist regarding whether the tire manufacturer had an agreemen…
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“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”
Court's standard for denying summary judgment motions, citing Jones v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.
The decedent was killed when a Mack dump truck driven by Roger Cleworth, with a deteriorated left front tire, crossed the center line of Highway 17 in…
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 Duty To Inspect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order granting summary final judgment in a negligence case in which Appellant’s husband (decedent) was killed when the left front tire of a Mack dump truck driven by Roger Cle-worth blew out and the dump truck crossed the center line of Highway 17 in Duval County, slamming into the vehicle driven by decedent. Appellant claims Ap-pellee Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was negligent because it failed to adequately warn of the dangers of operating a dump truck with a deteriorated and worn tire.
Viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them in a light most favorable to Appellant, we conclude that disputed issues of material fact exist concerning whether Appellee had an agreement with Cleworth or Cleworth’s employer to inspect the tire; the terms of any such agreement; and whether those terms would justify Cleworth’s reliance on Appellee’s expertise, thereby excusing any failure on his part to inspect the tire and discover its unsafe condition. Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment, and remand for further proceedings. See Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Ernst Ludwig Kipp v. Sigrun Kipp, 844 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e before this court was based on the language of the agreement. This court has consistently held that parol evidence is not admissible where terms of a contract are complete and unambiguous. Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Progressive Mktg. Group, Inc., 801 So. 2d 131, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McKay v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 731 So. 2d 852, 853, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As we find no ambiguity in the language, it would be inappropriate for this court to consider parol evidence or remand this case for consi…
-
Am. Boxing & Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Young, 911 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…he Michigan parties, who were in the stronger bargaining position, while inconveniencing the majority of witnesses and Mr. Young. We disagree with this rationale for denying the motions. See Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Progressive Mktg. Group, Inc., 801 So. 2d 131, 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We affirm, nevertheless, because the court’s decision was correct, albeit for the wrong reason. See Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 643 (Fla.1999). At the outset, the parties to this appeal disa…
-
Golden Palm Hospitality, Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 874 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…e proper venue,1 the de novo [*1234] standard applies when contractual interpretation of a forum selection clause is at issue. Ware Else, Inc. v. Ofstein, 856 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Bombardier Capital Inc. v. Progressive Mktg. Group, Inc., 801 So. 2d 131, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“The interpretation or construction of a contract is a matter of law and an appellate court is not restricted from reaching a construction contrary to that of the trial court.”) (citation omitted), review denied, 828 So. 2d…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)