OPAL SHEPPARD AND L. P. SHEPPARD, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
INVERNESS COCA-COLA BOTTLING 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.
A negligence action brought by Opal Sheppard for injuries caused by a falling Coca-Cola bottle was dismissed on a motion to dismiss. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for negligence despite ambiguities in the pleading, though it affirmed the dismissal of the warranty count.
The court held that the third amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for negligence despite its ambiguities and susceptibility to multiple interpretations. The complaint should not have been dismissed on a motion to dismiss, though the bottling company may be entitled to summary judgment or directed verdict once facts are developed. The implied warranty count was properly dismissed as insufficient as a matter of law.
[1] A complaint is not subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action based on vague or ambiguous pleading.
[2] A third-party defendant may not be held responsible for the condition of goods until such time as the defendant intends to surrender possession of them.
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“A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action does not reach defects of vague and ambiguous pleading.”
Establishes the standard that ambiguities in pleading cannot support dismissal on a motion to dismiss; factual ambiguities must be resolved favorably to the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOpal Sheppard was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle fell from a carton and exploded while she was handling cartons that an Inverness Coca-Cola employee …
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 Implied Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a third amended complaint with prejudice.
The appellants allege that Opal Sheppard suffered personal injuries when a Coca-Cola bottle fell from a carton she was handling and exploded when it hit the floor. Mrs. Sheppard was working for Nobleton Grocery Store when an employee of the appellee bottling company was making a delivery of Cokes. According to the complaint, Mrs. Sheppard removed two six-pack cartons from a dolly on which the man from the bottling company was transporting them. The appellee was charged with negligently failing to inspect the carton so as to determine that the bottom was wet and soggy and of insufficient strength to support the weight of the bottle.
The third amended complaint was apparently dismissed on the premise that Mrs. Sheppard interfered with the appellee’s delivery process. Certainly, the complaint is susceptible of this interpretation. If these are the facts, the order of dismissal is correct because the appellee should not be held responsible for the condition of the carton until such time as the appellee intended to surrender possession of it. However, the complaint is susceptible of other interpretations. It could be inferred that the injury occurred after the delivery of Cokes was completed. The complaint may also support the inference that Mrs. Sheppard was assisting in the unloading of the cartons pursuant to custom or the request of appellee’s employee. A motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action does not reach defects of vague and ambiguous pleading. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 563.
'On balance, we think the third amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for negligence. When the facts are more fully developed, the appelleq may be entitled to summary judgment or a directed verdict, but at this point the appellants should be permitted to stay in court on their count in negligence. Their second count predicated upon a theory of implied warranty was insufficient as a matter of law.
Reversed.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raoul Vienneau v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…er. But a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action does not reach the defects of vague and ambiguous pleading. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563 (Fla.1971); Sheppard v. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 322 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Calhoun v. Epstein, 121 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Rather, the trial court was required to view the recitals in the complaint, together with exhibits attached, in the light most favorable to Vienneau and draw all reasona…
-
Feller v. EAU Gallie Yacht Basin, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…la.R.Civ.P. 1.130(a). . Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.130(b). . Woolzy v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 360 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Harry Pepper & Assoc. Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). .See Sheppard v. Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 322 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Cohn v. Florida-Georgia Television Co., Inc., 218 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Oster v. Krause, 168 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).…
Authorities Cited
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, 246 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1971)