KENNETH PRICE AND DIANE PRICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MILLER & SOLOMON GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., EAST COAST TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC., HERSHELL GILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., B.C. ARCHITECTS, A.I.A., INC., F/K/A BRITO, COHAN & ASSOCIATES, A.I.A., P.A., TIGHT LINE MASONRY, INC., SOUTHERN STATE MASONRY, INC., AND FLORIDA COAST BUILDERS, INC., 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 Prices appealed summary judgment granted in favor of Southern State Masonry and the denial of their motion to amend their complaint following Kenneth Price's construction accident injury. The appellate court reversed both orders, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment as futile.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the employer, causation, and foreseeability of the accident. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the amendment motion as futile because the record was insufficiently developed to determine whether the construction work constituted an inherently dangerous activity.
[1] Genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer of the injured worker, causation, and foreseeability of the accident preclude summary judgment.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint if the amendment would not prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has not been…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“There were disputed issues of fact regarding the actual employer of the worker who allegedly injured Price, the causation of the accident, and its foreseeability. We find that the existence of these genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.”
Establishes why summary judgment was improper—the existence of genuine factual disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Price was injured in a construction accident at a job site. Southern State Masonry was involved in the construction work and had engaged Tight…
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 Breach Of Non-Delegable Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
Kenneth and Diane Price (“the Prices”) appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of Southern State Masonry, Inc. (“Southern”) and an order denying the Prices’ motion to amend their complaint. We reverse both orders.
Kenneth Price was injured in a construction accident. There were disputed issues of fact regarding the actual employer of the worker who allegedly injured Price, the causation of the accident, and its foreseeability. We find that the existence of these genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. Southern claims that it owed Price no duty. Southern’s argument relies on the assumption that the accident was unforeseeable as a matter of law, and we respectfully disagree.
We also reverse the order denying the Prices’ motion to amend their complaint to include a claim that Southern breached a non-delegable duty in failing to safely supervise Southern’s subcontractor, Tight Line Masonry, Inc. (“Tight Line”). The lower court denied the motion on the grounds that an amendment would be futile.
“Refusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.” Vaughn v. Boerckel, 20 So.3d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “A proposed amendment is futile if it is insufficiently pled, or is insufficient as a matter of law.” Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat’l Bank, 21 So.3d 883, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Southern argues that the Prices’ amendment would be futile because the work was not inherently dangerous. We must reject Southern’s argument because the record was insufficiently developed to determine whether, in fact, the construction involved in the instant case constituted an inherently dangerous activity. See Doak v. Green, 677 So.2d 301, 302 & n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (noting that deciding whether an ac*1253tivity is inherently dangerous is generally a question for the fact-finder unless the record is sufficiently developed on the issue).
Reversed and remanded.
TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of: B.R.C.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 215 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2017)…s that a pleading should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless the privilége to amend “has been abused” or amendment would be “futile,” i.e., where the pleading deficiencies cannot be cured. Price v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 104 So. 3d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because it is clear that the trial judge here would have dismissed this petition irrespective of any attempt to amend, I believe the conflict issue to be ripe for decision. See, e.g., State v. Walker, 923 So. 2d 1262, 1265…
-
Steinmetz v. Pickholtz, 414 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat'l Bank, 21 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Vaughn v. Boerckel, 20 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Karen W. Doak and husband v. Green, 677 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)