IVAN MARTINEZ, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court quashed a district court decision that had affirmed dismissal of a negligence claim against a utility company for failing to maintain a streetlight where a child was struck and killed. The Court held that the utility assumed a duty to maintain streetlights with due care, and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Clay Electric decision establishing this duty.
The trial court erred in granting the utility company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs adequately alleged that the utility company assumed a specific, legally recognized duty to act with due care in maintaining the streetlights, and this duty creates liability for negligent failure to maintain the light.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings requires the court to accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint and all fair inferences therefrom as true.
[2] The allegations in a defendant's answer are not considered when ruling on the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
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 failure to maintain a streetlight does not create a risk greater than the risk created by the total absence of streetlights”
FP&L's argument in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejected by the Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 4, 1996, a child named Albert Martinez was struck and killed by a sports utility vehicle while crossing a road in darkness where a streetl…
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 De Novo Review cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Senior Justice.
We have for review Martinez v. Florida Power & Light Co., 785 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (hereinafter “Martinez ”), which expressly and directly conflicts with Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Johnson, Nos. SC01-1955 & SC01-1956, — So. 2d -, 2003 WL 22966277(Fla. Dec. 18, 2003) (hereinafter “Clay Electric”). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The pertinent facts as alleged in the complaint are as follows. On November 4, 1996, a child named Albert Martinez was crossing a two-lane road during the early evening darkness when he was struck and killed by a sports utility vehicle in an area where a streetlight was inoperative. The force of the impact threw the child’s body approximately one hundred feet from the site of the collision. Albert’s parents, acting as personal representatives of his estate, filed a negligence claim against, inter alia, the streetlight maintenance company, Florida Power and Light Company. (“FP & L”).
After filing its answer, FP & L moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that “[the] failure to maintain a streetlight does not create a risk greater than the risk created by the total absence of streetlights.” The circuit court granted the motion, and the district court affirmed. Albert’s parents sought review based on conflict with Johnson v. Lance, Inc., 790 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (hereinafter “Johnson”), and Lance, Inc. v. Johnson, 790 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (hereinafter “Lance ”). We granted review in Martinez, Johnson, and Lance, consolidated Johnson and Lance, and reviewed Martinez separately. We subsequently approved both Johnson and Lance in Clay Electric, wherein we ruled narrowly: In the present cases, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting Clay Electric’s motion for summary judgment. Viewing the record, the undisputed facts, and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, we hold that the plaintiffs have adequately shown that Clay Electric assumed a specific, legally recognized duty to the plaintiffs to act with due care in maintaining the streetlights.
Clay Electric, slip op. at 8, — So. 2d at -.
Because the district court below did not have the benefit of Clay Electric when it rendered its decision in Martinez, we quash Martinez and remand for proceedings consistent with Clay Electric. On remand, the standard of review is de novo1 and the criterion for analyzing the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings is as follows:
In passing on such motion made by defendant all well pleaded material allegations of the complaint and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom must be taken as true and the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action by his complaint. The test we apply in this instance is the same as if defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint for ‘failure to state a cause of action’.... The allegations of the defendant’s answer are of no avail to him at a hearing on defendant’s motion for decree on the pleadings.
Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131, 183 (Fla. 1956).
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. CANTERO, J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS, J., concurs.
. See generally Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000) ("[T]he standard of review for a pure question of law is de novo.”).
CANTERO, J.,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Delores Johnson, et al., SC01-1955, I dissent in this case as well.
WELLS, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Geanetta Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2004)…ubsequent decisions that have clarified and extended Tripp, become applicable to those sentenced pursuant to the criminal punishment code. As this is a pure question of law, the standard of review is de novo. See Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light, Co., 863 So. 2d 1204, 1205 n. 1 (Fla.2003); Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000). Based upon the analysis below, we answer the certified question in the negative, agree with the district court of appeal below, and hold that Tripp and its progeny do not apply…
-
Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2005)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Florida Power & Light Co. v. Goldberg, 856 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), which expressly and directly conflicts with this Court’s decision in Martinez v. Florida Power & Light Co., 863 So. 2d 1204 (Fla.2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. As more fully discussed further herein, we quash the decision of the Third District [*1108] Court of Appeal and remand the case for reinstatement of the remitted final judgment as…1 / 2
-
S. Baptist Hosp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Welker, 908 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2005)…Baptist’s conduct wrongfully resulted in the suspension of Welker’s parental rights for a significant period of time. This question involves a pure question of law and thus is subject to de novo review. [*320] See Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 863 So. 2d 1204, 1205 n. 1 (Fla.2003). Because this case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations stated in the amended complaint are accepted as true. See Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1999). The impact rule, which is well e…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rev. Dr. James Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000)
- Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1956)
- Martinez v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 785 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Johnson v. Lance, Inc., 790 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Lance, Inc. v. Johnson, 790 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)