DIONISIO ALVAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Plaintiff Alvarez appealed a summary judgment dismissing his personal injury claim against Florida Power and Light Company for injuries from contact with an electrical wire. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that triable issues of negligence and contributory negligence precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improperly granted. Triable issues relating to negligence and contributory negligence existed that could not be resolved on summary judgment, and the case should have proceeded to trial.
[1] Summary judgment is error when triable issues of negligence and contributory negligence exist.
[2] Summary judgment motions should be granted sparingly, only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.
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“there were triable issues relating to negligence and contributory negligence which properly could not be resolved on summary judgment”
States the core holding that disputed factual issues about negligence precluded 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 intelligenceAlvarez sustained personal injuries by coming into contact with an electrical wire or line maintained by Florida Power and Light Company. Following ex…
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 Right To Jury Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiff below from a summary judgment for the defendant. The action was for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff upon coming in contact with an electrical wire or line maintained by the defendant-appel-lee. Following extensive discovery the defendant moved for and was granted a summary judgment. Having considered the record and briefs we hold it was error to grant the summary judgment. Upon examination of the pleadings and the evidence that was before the trial court on the motion for summary judgment we are impelled to conclude there were triable issues relating to negligence and contributory negligence which properly could not be resolved on summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40. We repeat, as applicable to this case, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in an opinion authored by Justice Drew in Williams v. City of Lake City, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 732, viz:
“The right to a jury trial is a very sacred part of our system of jurisprudence and, *547while we have held that the granting of a summary judgment does not infringe upon such constitutional right, that very holding carries with it the idea that such judgments should be sparingly granted and only in those cases where there remains no genuine issue of any material fact. To put it another way, such motion should be granted only where the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. It was never intended by this rule that cases should be tried by affidavit or that affidavits, interrogatories or depositions or similar evidence, could be used as substitutes for a jury trial. To sum it all up, if there are issues of fact and the slightest doubt remains, a summary judgment cannot be granted.” Accordingly the summary judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilhelm v. A.R. Traynor, Jr., D.O., 434 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…s ground would not be time-barred. . MacMurray v. Board of Regents, 362 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). . Johnson v. Mullee, 385 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Alvarez v. Florida Power and Light Co., 260 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). . This is a harsh result in this case. The common understanding among lay people is that skin cancer can be easily and readily cured by minor surgery or radiation treatment. It is not a “death sentence” to be told you have skin…
-
Fries v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 402 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…assumption of risk as an absolute defense under comparative negligence, apply to the erection and maintenance of power lines, as does the restriction on granting summary judgments in negligence cases. See Alvarez v. Florida Power and Light Company, 260 So. 2d 546 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 265 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1972). The fact that the power lines here were clearly visible relates only to appellants’ possible negligence and does not indicate lack of any negligence of the power company. Similarly, design and…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Dionisio Alvarez, 265 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 260 So. 2d 546. ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. CARLTON, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Williams v. City OF Lake City, 62 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1953)