GRACIELA ADJIMAN, PAOLA ADJIMAN AND ALBERTO VENTURA, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ALAN ADJIMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DARIO ADJIMAN, APPELLEE
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.
Children injured and killed in a motor vehicle collision sued their father for negligent operation of the vehicle and negligent failure to ensure they wore seatbelts. The court dismissed the appeal because the negligent operation claim remains pending, making the order striking the seatbelt theory claim not yet reviewable.
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice because the order striking the seatbelt theory is not subject to review at this time, as the negligent operation claim seeking the same relief remains pending in the trial court.
[1] An order striking a portion of a complaint is not subject to immediate appellate review when the claim seeking the same relief remains pending in the trial court.
[2] An appeal from an order that is not a final judgment must be dismissed without prejudice to appropriate appellate review after a final judgment is entered.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because, however, the negligent operation claim seeking the same relief remains pending in the trial court, the order striking the seatbelt theory of relief is not subject to review at this time.”
Establishes the rationale for dismissal—interlocutory orders are not reviewable when parallel claims remain pending.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFourteen-year-old Paola Adjiman was seriously injured and ten-year-old Alan Adjiman was killed when a minivan driven by their father Dario Adjiman col…
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 Negligent Operation Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Fourteen year old Paola Adjiman was seriously injured and ten year old Man Adjiman was killed when a minivan driven by their father Dario Adjiman was involved in an intersection collision and they were thrown from the vehicle. Their representatives sued their father on theories both that he had negligently operated the vehicle and that he had negligently failed to insure that the children had fastened their seatbelts.1 This is an appeal from orders which struck those portions of the complaint which dealt with the latter theory for failure to state a cause of action. Because, however, the negligent operation claim seeking the same relief remains pending in the trial court, the order striking the seatbelt theory of relief is not subject to review at this time. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974); Vila v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 383 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed entirely without prejudice to appropriate appellate review of the issue presented on appeal from a reviewable final judgment.
Appeal dismissed.
. This theory was, in turn, founded on dual claims that the duty to do so arose both from the common law, see Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984); Machin v. Walgreen, 835 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dellapenta v. Dellapenta, 838 P. 2d 1153 (Wyo.1992) and by statute, see § 316.614, Fla. Stat. (1997)("(4) It is unlawful for any person: (a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger of the vehicle under the age of 16 years is restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s. 316.613....”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)
- MacHin v. Walgreen Co., 835 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Vila v. The B. F. Goodrich Co., 383 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)