WILLIAM E. MOODY AND MILDRED F. MOODY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND W. D. HARDIN, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dependency For Support cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants timely appeal a final summary judgment.
Appellants were the parents of the deceased son who was killed in a collision between a train owned by the appellee, Seaboard, and a motor vehicle the deceased son was operating.
The trial court entered summary judgment for appellees on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the appellants being dependent on their deceased son for support.
Florida Statute 768.02 F.S.A. (1971) specifies that “where there is neither widow nor husband, nor minor child nor children, then the action may be maintained by any person or persons dependent on such person killed for a support.”
The appellants having qualified under the statute to bring this action if they can show that they were dependent on their deceased son for support, maintain that there are genuine issues of material fact as to their dependency for support and, therefore, the final summary judgment was improvidently entered.
Upon a review of the record on appeal, we agree with appellants that there are genuine issues of material fact on this issue and, therefore the final summary judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. & Phillip Hurlock, 362 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…Since Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966), appellate courts have closely scrutinized whether a movant has satisfactorily met the burden of conclusively showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Moody v. Seaboard Coastline RR., 287 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). And, of course, all facts and inferences are to be resolved against the party seeking a summary judgment and in favor of the party opposing it. Stringfellow v.…
-
Eleanor M. "Lee" Ross in Bankruptcy for Jack Brock and Aurie Brock v. Pittsburgh Testing Lab., 381 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…)], we find the defendant has failed to show the absence of genuine questions of material facts necessary to grant a summary judgment in its favor. Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Moody v. Seaboard Coast Line RR, 287 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); U. S. Fire Insurance Company v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, supra. Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Reversed.…