PHILIP W. RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WAL-MARK CONTRACTING GROUP, LLC, L.C., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND WEST STAR INTERIORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Richardson, an employee injured when he tripped over metal studs that fell from a stack, appealed summary judgment granted to West Star, the framing subcontractor. The court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding West Star's responsibility for stacking and securing the studs in compliance with safety regulations.
The court held that genuine issues of material fact remained and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. It must still be decided whether West Star was responsible for stacking and securing the studs, whether it followed applicable safety regulations, and whether it had responsibility for the individual who cut the bundle.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.
[2] The nonmoving party in a summary judgment proceeding is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.
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 party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of genuine issue of material fact.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment motions and places the evidentiary burden on the moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was employed on a construction site and tripped over a metal stud that had fallen from a stack of material. The studs had been bound in bun…
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 Exclusive Control cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Philip W. Richardson appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of West Star Interiors, Inc. He argues that genuine issues of material fact remain and that the trial court erred in granting West Star’s motion for summary judgment. We agree and reverse.
Richardson was employed on a construction site by a subcontractor installing glass. As he walked through a partially constructed building, he tripped over a metal stud that had fallen from a stack of material. He alleged that the studs had been bound in bundles and stacked for future use when someone apparently cut open a bundle of the studs, allowing several to fall to the floor. He then tripped over the debris and was injured. He filed an action against West Star, the subcontractor responsible for the wall framing in the building where the accident occurred, alleging that West Star did not follow the proper safety guidelines in stacking the bundles, did not give proper warning of the debris, and did not properly supervise the person who cut the bundle.
West Star filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that since Richardson could not identify the person who cut the bundle and since it was admitted that the employees of several of the other subcontractors had access to the studs, Richardson could not, as a matter of law, prevail. That is, West Star did not have exclusive control of the studs and Richardson could not show that a West Star employee had caused the studs to fall to the floor. In opposition to the motion, Richardson filed his affidavit suggesting that West Star was responsible for following the proper safety guidelines promulgated by OSHA in storing material delivered for its use.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). Additionally, the nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of every possible inference that may be drawn from the facts before the trial court. Brugiere v. Credit Commerciale Fr., 679 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We agree that genuine issues of material fact remain in this case. It must still be decided if West Star was responsible for the stacking and securing of these studs. If so, it must be resolved whether West Star followed the applicable safety regulations regarding stacking and securing the studs. Finally, it is not clear whether West Star had any responsibility for the individual who cut the bundle and allowed the studs to fall into Richardson’s path. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarkis Konsulian v. Busey Bank, 61 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…den St. Iron & Metal, Inc. v. Tanner, 789 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). “The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of [a] genuine issue of material fact.” Richardson v. Wal-Mark Contracting Group, LLC, 814 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43-44 (Fla.1966)). A summary judgment must not only establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to the parties’ claims, but it also must either factually refute the affir…
-
Waksman Enters., Inc. v. Or. Props., Inc., 862 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…regon can be upheld on this point only if there are no disputed issues of fact that are material to Oregon’s claim [*43] that it had the right to terminate the contract under addendum paragraph 5. See, e.g., Richardson v. Wal-Mark Contracting Group, 814 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that “[t]he party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of genuine issue of material fact”) (citation omitted); Lively v. CSX Transp., Inc., 557 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (st…
-
Loida Coral v. Garrard Crane Serv., Inc., 62 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). “The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of [a] genuine issue of material fact.” Richardson v. Wal-Mark Contracting Grp., LLC, 814 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966)). “If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of an issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an iss…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Brugiere v. Credit Commerciale France, 679 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)