ELVA BUCK AND LAWRENCE BUCK, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
GRACE HARDY, A WIDOW, AND EMANUEL B. NAFTEL, 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 Bucks, as tenants, sued their landlords for negligence after Mrs. Buck fell on a common walkway. The trial court granted the landlords' motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that negligence cases typically present genuine issues of material fact unsuitable for summary disposition.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding negligence, causation, and whether the landlords' alleged failure to maintain the walkway caused Mrs. Buck's fall. Issues of negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily not susceptible to summary adjudication and should be resolved through ordinary trial proceedings.
“The burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which under the substantive law would entitle the plaintiff to a judgment, is upon the defendant-movants. The Court in ruling on the motion is required to draw all reasonable inferences of fact from the proofs proffered in favor of the adversary and against the movant.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment: the moving defendant must affirmatively prove absence of material factual disputes, with all inferences drawn against them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Bucks were tenants in an apartment on the second floor of the defendants' property. Mrs. Buck went to retrieve mail from mailboxes located on the …
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
The Bucks, appellant-plaintiffs, brought an action against the appellee-defendants alleging negligence. The appellants were tenants of the defendants. The defendants denied the allegation of the complaint and plead contributory negligence. After the pleadings were settled the defendants moved for a summary judgment. The motion was granted and from the adverse summary judgment the plaintiffs appeal. We find error and reverse.
The burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which under the substantive *429law would entitle the plaintiff to a judgment, is upon the defendant-movants. The Court in ruling on the motion is required to draw all reasonable inferences of fact from the proofs proffered in favor of the adversary and against the movant. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 915; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd Ed.), par. 56.15(3), p. 2123.
The only proof proffered by the defendant was the depositions of the plaintiffs. Applying the foregoing rule of law then under the basic facts established by the testimony of the plaintiffs’ depositions and drawing all inferences of fact in favor of the plaintiffs the following facts are shown:
Mr. and Mrs. Buck were tenants of the defendant and occupied an apartment on the second floor and the mail boxes were on the first floor on the side of a four foot terrazzo walk way. On the morning of the accident Mrs. Buck went for the mail. She fell and was injured by reason of the fall; she became temporarily unconscious and has no memory of what caused her to fall. Upon gaining consciousness she felt pain and was wet and was at the place where she fell, and she directed the landlord’s attention to the water when he came to her assistance. There was a depression in the terrazzo where water would accumulate when it rained on the terrazzo walk way.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.36(c), 30 F.S.A., like Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A., provides that the court in passing on a motion for a summary judgment or decree shall forthwith render the judgment “ * * * if the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or decree as a matter of law. * * % »
The function of the court in passing on a motion for a summary judgment is to determine whether there is a genuine issue of any material fact and not to determine any issue of fact. Did the defendant affirmatively establish the absence of a genuine issue as to all material facts by the basic facts established and the favorable inferences of fact above recited? We think not. As stated by Moore •“ * * * issues of negligence, including such related issues as contributory negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against the claimant, but should be resolved in the ordinary manner.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), par. 56.17(42), p. 2232. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla. App.1958, 105 So.2d 915, supra.
The judgment appealed from is
Reversed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PIOR-TON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Edsel Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc., 138 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…ssue of material fact or if the proofs supporting the motion fail to overcome every theory upon which, under the pleadings, the adversary’s position might be sustained. Palov v. Florida Power & Light Co. (Fla.), 107 So. 2d 780; Buck v. Hardy (Fla.), 106 So. 2d 428; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores (Fla.App.), 105 So. 2d 915; Farrey v. Bettendorf (Fla.), 96 So. 2d 889; Jones v. Stoutenburgh (Fla.), 91 So. 2d 299; Manning v. Clark (Fla.), 71 So. 2d 508; 6 Moore’s Fed. Practice (2nd Ed.), par. 56.15(3), p. 2123. Ap…
-
Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 133 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ine issues of material fact. We find that it did. Under the summary judgment procedure, it is the function of the court to determine whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact and not to decide such issues. Buck v. Hardy, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 428. In Drahota v. Taylor Construction Co., Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 16, 18, the Supreme Court of Florida said: “The constitutional right to jury trial demands that particular care be accorded in this field, to the end that controverted issues of fact be re…
-
Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Co., Inc., 141 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…e whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact, not to decide such issues. Foster v. Gulfstream Press, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 270; Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., Fla.App. 1961, 133 So. 2d 651; Buck v. Hardy, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 428. In Buck v. Hardy, supra, this court said: “[Ijssues of negligence, including such related issues as contributory negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against the claimant, but should be resolved in the o…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Lager, 105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)