BRYANT
v.
KUHN ET AL.
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.
Mary Bryant appealed a trial court decision requiring her to join her insurance carriers as use plaintiffs in a negligence action against plumbers for damages from a fire allegedly caused by their negligent installation and repair of a hot water heater. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the third amended complaint joining the insurers was voluntarily filed and no formal order requiring joinder appeared in the record, Bryant could not complain of the result.
The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error because: (1) no formal order requiring joinder appears in the record; (2) the third amended complaint joining the insurers was voluntarily filed by the plaintiff; and (3) absent a formal order, the plaintiff cannot complain of injurious results from the joinder decision.
“It is fundamental that it is only upon the record before us that we are authorized to review the actions of the lower Court.”
Establishes the principle that appellate review is limited to matters appearing in the formal record, not oral statements or actions not formally documented.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Bryant filed suit on August 17, 1951 against Kuhn Plumbing and Electric Shop for damages from a fire allegedly caused by negligent installation a…
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 Appellate Review Of Record cases and more on FLexlaw
[*676] DREW, Justice.,
The principal contention in this appeal is that the lower Court committed substantial and harmful error by requiring the plaintiff to join her insurance carriers as use plaintiffs in an action she had instituted to recover damages resulting from a fire allegedly caused by the negligent installation and repairs to a hot water heater made by the appellees.
The record shews that the original complaint was filed on August 17, 1951 by Mary Bryant, the plaintiff, against Bertha Kuhn, Gertrude Kuhn and Peter Kuhn, a partnership trading as Kuhn Plumbing and Electric Shop. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants and sustained by the lower Court with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff to which a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and a motion for more definite statement were filed. These motions were never ruled on by any formal order which appears in the record in this cause. Instead, after a notice of hearing on the motions had been filed, a third amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff, individually, “and for the use and benefit of Home Insurance Company and Aetna Insurance Company.” Upon the issues formed by defendants’ answer to the latter complaint, a trial was had before a jury who found in favor of defendants.
At the bar of this Court plaintiff argued that the reason the third amended complaint was filed was that the lower Court had orally stated to plaintiff’s counsel that unless he joined the insurance carriers as use plaintiffs, the action would be dismissed. There is no order in this record evidencing such ruling. It is conceded that no formal order was ever entered. It is fundamental that it is only upon the record before us that we are authorized to review the actions of the lower Court. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 93, 53 So. 838, 842. So far as the record shows, the third amended complaint was voluntarily filed by the plaintiff and she cannot now complain of any injurious result of joining the insurance carriers as use plaintiffs. Compare Dorman v. Dorman, 125 Fla. 280, 169 So. 867.
The other questions raised have been duly considered by us but found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, Acting C. J., and THOMAS and HERIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1910)
- Dorman v. Dorman, 125 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)