VIVIAN NAPIER AND LUCIEN NAPIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICK J. NEAFSEY, DONALD S. COOPER AND SYBLE P. CARIGLINO, 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 appellate court reversed a summary judgment granted to one of three alleged joint tortfeasors, finding that the complaint, despite its pleading deficiencies, stated a cause of action and raised genuine issues of material fact.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The complaint, when read with the answer, stated a cause of action against the appellee Cariglino and presented genuine issues of material fact.
“In this state of the record, the trial judge concluded that there were no genuine issues of material facts raised by the pleadings and that the appellee Cariglino was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Describes the basis for the trial court's summary judgment ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sued multiple appellees, including Cariglino, alleging specific and concurrent acts of negligence. Cariglino moved for summary judgment, wh…
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 Concurrent Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee Cariglino, one of three alleged joint tort feasors. The summary judgment was based upon the appellants’ complaint and the answer of the appellee Cariglino. There were no supporting affidavits or depositions. In this state of the record, the trial judge concluded that there were no genuine issues of material facts raised by the pleadings and that the appellee Cariglino was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In effect, the trial judge concluded that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against appellee Cariglino.
The complaint charged the various ap-pellees with’specific acts of negligence and, in addition, in a separate count, charged the appellees with concurrent acts of negligence.
Although the complaint may not be a model of good pleading, nevertheless, it does state a cause of action against ap-pellee Cariglino' and, together with the answer, raises genuine issues as to material facts.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CPI AS., JJ., concur..