CANADA DRY BOTTLING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
K. M. A., INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Canada Dry Bottling Company sought review of a circuit court's decision that reversed the county court's judgment against it but allowed K.M.A. to reopen its case to present additional evidence of negligence. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that once a defendant's motion to dismiss is properly granted due to failure to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff cannot be given another opportunity to present evidence, and judgment must be entered for the defendant.
No. Once a plaintiff has been given a fair opportunity to present its case in chief and a defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 1.420(b), the court must determine whether a prima facie case has been established. If not, the court must grant the motion and enter judgment for the defendant. The appellate court may either affirm or reverse with directions to enter judgment for the movant, but may not remand to allow the plaintiff to present additional evidence.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal when the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case.
[2] An appellate court, upon reversing a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal, must either affirm or reverse with directions to enter judgme…
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“Once a plaintiff has been given a fair opportunity to present its case in chief and the defendant, as here, has moved for dismissal under Rule 1.420(b), the court must determine if a prima facie case has been established.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case in chief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M.A., as plaintiff, sued Canada Dry for damages arising from a truck that allegedly rolled down a street and crashed into K.M.A.'s building. In a no…
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The circuit court, in its appellate capacity, held the county court erred in denying defendant’s motion for dismissal at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, but that plaintiff was entitled to another trial to present additional evidence. In this latter ruling the court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Our writ of certiorari is granted.
Respondent K.M.A., as plaintiff, filed an action in county court seeking damages against the petitioner Canada Dry, as defendant. The complaint alleged that Canada Dry’s employee negligently allowed one of its trucks to roll down a street and crash into K.M.A.’s building. In a nonjury trial, K.M.A. relied solely upon the hearsay testimony of its president, who was not present when the accident occurred, to establish liability of the defendant. K.M.A.’s timely objection to this hearsay evidence was overruled by the trial judge.
When the plaintiff completed its presentation and again at the conclusion of the trial, defendant Canada Dry moved to dismiss the action under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(b). The court denied the motions and awarded K.M.A. a judgment of $2,724.88.
On appeal the circuit court adjudged:
1. The Final Judgment is reversed because the lower court erred in denying Appellant’s [Canada Dry’s] motion for involuntary dismissal, made at the end of Appellee’s [K.M.A.’s] case in chief and renewed at the close of all the evidence.
2. This cause is remanded to the lower court with the direction that Appellee [K.M.A.] be allowed to reopen its case in chief in order to present any evidence it may have of Appellant’s [Canada Dry’s] negligence or evidence it may have which will permit application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Once a plaintiff has been given a fair opportunity to present its case in chief and the defendant, as here, has moved for dismissal under Rule 1.420(b), the court must determine if a prima facie case has been established. The motion is treated similarly to a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial. If the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, it is incumbent upon the court to grant the defendant’s motion and render a judgment on the merits for the defendant. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1972); Osborne v. Shell Oil Co., 104 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(b).
Where a trial court has refused to enter a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, the circuit court on appeal must either affirm, or reverse with directions to enter judgment for the movant. See 6345 Collins Avenue v. Fein, 95 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1957). Here the circuit court properly reversed the county court for denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. But, as an appellate tribunal, the circuit court then departed from the essential requirements of the law when it remanded the case to allow the plaintiff to reopen and present additional evidence.
Certiorari is granted and this cause is remanded with directions that the circuit court order a judgment be entered in favor of defendant.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…for dismissal of Montgomery’s claim at the close of plaintiff’s case, contending that no prima facie case for recovery had been established, because the proof established untimely performance by Montgomery. Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. K. M. A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We believe there was sufficient evidence before the trial court for denial of this motion, particularly since the subcontract between the parties provided for the contingency of late performance in the following proviso in ¶ SECON…
-
Hardcastle v. Mohr, 483 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…Since Mohr did not establish a prima facie case that he had complied with the notice requirement, it was incumbent on the trial judge to render judgment on the merits for the defendant sheriff. See Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida v. K.M.A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). At this point, it was too late in the proceedings for Mohr to rectify his error of having failed to show compliance. See City of Miami Beach v. O’Hara, 166 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1965).…
-
Midland-Guardian Co. v. Hagin, 370 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…lso contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing it to reopen its case to introduce the note, retail installment contract, and assignment. In support of the trial court appellees cite Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. K. M. A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), where we held the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, erred in remanding a case to the county court to allow a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence to make its case. We think appellees’ reliance upon Canada Dry…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Easter Mae Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1972)
- Osborne v. Shell OIL Co., 104 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- 6345 Collins Ave., Inc. v. Murray A. Fein, 95 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1957)