BILLY DEE WILLIAMS; MICHAEL LAMAR DAYMON; EDWIN DEVASCO FAIRCLOTH; STEVE RUBEN JEAN-JACQUES; AND DORIAN SHANNEL JOHNSON, NATURAL PERSONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALGERNOD LANIER WASHINGTON, AND RONNELL L. LEVATTE, 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 appellants obtained a jury verdict on negligence and negligent hiring/retention claims after an eight-day trial, but the trial court granted summary judgment and directed verdicts for the appellees. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that summary judgment cannot be granted after trial and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict.
Summary judgment cannot be granted after trial has commenced because it is a pretrial mechanism. Even treating the order as a directed verdict, the trial court erred because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to appellants, supported the jury's verdict.
[1] Summary judgment is a pretrial mechanism and cannot be granted after a trial has commenced.
[2] Once a trial begins, the sufficiency of a plaintiff's evidence can only be tested by a motion for directed verdict.
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“It was improper to grant summary judgment after trial as summary judgments are pretrial mechanisms, the "principle function [of which] is to avoid the time and expense of a useless trial if it clearly appears from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record that there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."”
Establishes that summary judgment cannot be granted post-trial because it is inherently a pretrial mechanism
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an eight-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants Williams, Daymon, Faircloth, Jean-Jacques, and Johnson on claims of neg…
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 Hiring, Supervision, And Retention cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case, Appellants seek review of the trial court’s orders directing verdicts for Appellees and “reinstating” a previously granted, then vacated, order on summary judgment. We reverse.
Following an eight-day trial and a jury verdict in favor of Appellants on claims of negligence and negligent hiring and retention, the trial court granted summary judgment and directed verdicts for Appel-lees.
It was improper to grant summary judgment after trial as summary judgments are pretrial mechanisms, the “principle function [of which] is to avoid the time and expense of a useless trial if it clearly appears from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record that there is no genuine issue of any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Suggs v. Allen, 563 So.2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (quoting Fish Carburetor Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 125 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)); see also Ameriseal of N.E. Fla., Inc. v. Leiffer, 738 So.2d 993, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). “Once the trial commences, the defendant can test the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence by a motion for directed verdict[.]” Ameriseal, 738 So.2d at 994. Thus, an order purporting to “reinstate” a pretrial motion for summary judgment after, and contrary to, the jury’s verdict is erroneous.
Even if we treated the order “reinstating” summary judgment after a trial and verdict as an order directing verdict, we would still be compelled to reverse.
We review a trial court’s orders directing verdicts de novo. See Borda v. E. Coast Entm’t, Inc., 950 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Here, drawing all inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to Appellants, we find the evidence supported the jury’s verdict. See Brady v. SCI Funeral Serv., of Fla., Inc., 948 So.2d 976, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“A directed verdict will be affirmed only when no proper view of the evidence could warrant a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.”). Therefore, it was error for the trial court to grant directed verdicts for Appellees. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to reinstate the jury’s verdicts in their entirety.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ and SHEFFIELD, FRANK E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. & Philip Morris USA, Inc., 157 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…erdict on the sole remaining claim of failure to warn before 1969. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied, and this appeal ensued. Analysis A trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict is reviewed de novo. Williams v. Washington, 120 So. 3d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “[I]n reviewing the propriety of a directed verdict, an appellate court must weigh the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the [*312] light most favorable to the person against whom judgment has been granted. A d…
-
Sells v. CSX Transp., Inc., 170 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…er concluded that CSX did not have a duty to provide prompt medical treatment to Sells. The court found that Appellant failed to prove causation on this issue. . A trial court's order directing a verdict is reviewed de novo. Williams v. Washington, 120 So. 3d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). A directed verdict will be affirmed only when no reasonable view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Id. . Appellant characterizes these devices as "simple” and easily "administered b…1 / 2
-
Fiorentino v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 162 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…d her husband, Antonio, timely appeal an order entitled “Summary Final Judgment of Foreclosure,” entered in favor of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP after a nonjury trial. We reverse. A summary judgment is a pretrial mechanism. Williams v. Washington, 120 So. 3d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Its principle function is to “avoid the time and expense of a useless trial if it clearly appears from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record that there is no genuine issue of any material…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fish Carburetor Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 125 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Suggs v. Elliott Allen and Trisha Allen, 563 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Eston G. Monds v. State, 738 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Borda v. E. Coast Ent., Inc., 950 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Brady v. SCI Funeral Servs. OF Fla., Inc., 948 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)