ROGELIO PEREZ, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF ROGELIO PEREZ, JR., A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSE MILTON ET AL., 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 court held that genuine issues of material fact existed, precluding summary judgment.
A nine-year-old boy was injured by a BB gun fired by an eleven-year-old friend, the son of the apartment complex managers. The rifle was retrieved fro…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek reversal of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees, owners of an apartment complex, in an action arising from injuries sustained by nine year old Rogelio Perez, Jr., when he was hit in the eye by a shot from a B. B. rifle fired by Mark Mura, an eleven year old friend, and the son of appellees’ managers, Mr. and Mrs. Bruno Mura.
Mark’s mother directed him to go to a vacant apartment in the complex and get a B.B. rifle that had been left by a former tenant. Rogelio, Jr., who lived with his parents in the complex went with his friend Mark to the apartment where the rifle was found and taken to the office of the managers, Mr. and Mrs. Mura. Sometime thereafter, as Rogelio, Jr. was leaving from .that vicinity, he was shot in the eye by Mark with the B.B. rifle which he had brought to the office at the request of his mother. The trial court, upon consideration of the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, found that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the appellees were entitled to a summary final judgment as a matter of law.
We do not agree. In our view the record on appeal discloses that there are genuine issues of material fact which have not been eliminated by the movants for the summary judgment. Carter v. Parker, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 3.
Reversed.
BARKDULL, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abernathy v. Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau, 428 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…at issue were the only issue determinative of any immunity of the appellees. Summary judgment should only be granted when there is no material issue of fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Perez v. Milton, 322 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). More importantly for our purposes, however, is the basic question of whether a subcontractor is immune from tort actions by an employee of the general contractor. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1979),1 requires all contrac…
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. Parker, 183 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)