BETTY HOYT, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK EARL GALBREATH, APPELLEE
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 affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the evidence presented by the plaintiff, a guest passenger, was insufficient to establish gross negligence as a matter of law. The court emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact.
No, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish gross negligence, and therefore, summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate.
“The movant for a summary judgment admits the basic facts established, which are favorable to the adverse party, and every conclusion or inference favorable to the adversary that might reasonably be inferred from the evidence.”
This quote explains the standard applied when considering a motion for summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a guest passenger in the defendant's car, sued the defendant for injuries sustained in an accident. The trial court entered a summary j…
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 Gross Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant.
The trial judge determined that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a guest passenger in the car of the defendant, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish gross negligence.
The movant for a summary judgment admits the basic facts established, which are favorable to the adverse party, and every conclusion or inference favorable to the adversary that might reasonably *876be inferred from the evidence. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915, 918. The court, in the Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, supra, goes on to say:
“When the facts established on defendant’s motion for a summary judgment clearly show there is no genuine issue of any material fact, then the court may pierce the ‘paper-issues’ made by the pleadings and render judgment on the merits for the defendant, because of the want of any genuine issue as to any material fact; * * *
A review of the record in this case clearly shows that there is no issue of material fact. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding for the defendant on the question of gross negligence. See: F.S.A. § 320.59; Dye v. Freeman, Fla.App. 1959, 116 So.2d 647; Vihon v. McCormick, Fla.App. 1958, 109 So.2d 400.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Bollinger, 137 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…on that the “paper issues” created by the pleadings should have been recognized as such and a summary judgment entered for the defendant. The decree appealed accordingly must be reversed for that purpose. See Hoyt v. [*887] Galbreath, Fla.App.1962, 135 So. 2d 875; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla. App.1958, 105 So. 2d 915, 918. Reversed. SHANNON, C. J., and SMITH and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
-
Parker v. Ferrara, 174 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…., Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 776, Second District opinion filed 15 April 1965. On such a record the court may pierce the paper issues created by the pleadings. Smith v. Bollinger, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 881; [*576] Hoyt v. Galbrcath, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So. 2d 875; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 915, 918. There appearing no reversible error, the decree is affirmed. ALLEN, Acting C. J., and ANDREWS, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Lager, 105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Buffalo Indus. Bank v. Rose, 109 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- DYE v. Freeman, 116 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)