HYDE SHIPPING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CONCRETO ASFALTICO NACIONAL, S.A., 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.
Hyde Shipping appeals a summary judgment entered against it in a negligent bailment case. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Hyde's affirmative defenses, including criminal intervention by a third party and statutory limitations of liability, raised unresolved issues of material fact.
Summary judgment was improper because the affirmative defenses raised by Hyde—particularly the criminal intervention of a third party and statutory limitations of liability—created material factual disputes that must be resolved. The court held that summary judgment is appropriate only when each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record.
[1] Summary final judgment is appropriate only where each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record.
[2] A defendant's affirmative defense, such as the criminal intervention of a third party, may relieve the defendant of liability if the defendant demonstrates compliance wit…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is well established that summary final judgment is appropriate only where each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment in the context of affirmative defenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHyde Shipping was the defendant in a negligent bailment action brought by Concreto Asfáltico Nacional. Hyde raised several affirmative defenses includ…
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 Negligent Bailment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hyde Shipping Corporation (Hyde), the defendant below, appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of Concre-to Asfáltico Nacional, S.A. (CAN). Hyde contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment since the affirmative defenses they raised created issues of material fact which are still in dispute. We agree and reverse the judgment.
“It is well established that summary final judgment is appropriate only where each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record. Spear v. Martin, 330 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).” Pandol Bros., Inc. v. NCNB Nat’l Bank, 450 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also International Commercial Properties, Inc. v. O’Donnell, 462 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wilson v. Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Allington Towers Condominium North, Inc. v. Allington Towers North, Inc., 415 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Emile v.
First Nat’l Bank, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Hyde raised several affirmative defenses to CAN’s allegation of negligent bailment, including the criminal intervention of a third party and contractual, as well as federal statutory (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act), limitation of liability. At the very least, there remained unresolved issues concerning the criminal intervention by a third party, which may ultimately relieve Hyde of liability if Hyde demonstrates that it complied with the standard of care required of a bailee. Because CAN failed to conclusively refute all of Hyde’s affirmative defenses, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for CAN.
Accordingly, the judgment under review is Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tausinger v. Woodlawn Park Assocs., 681 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…are disputed issues of material fact or when affirmative defenses have not been conclusively refuted on the record. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 190 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concreto Asfaltico Nacional, S.A., 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because the parties’ affidavits are contradictory on the facts that would establish the Tausingers’ affirmative defenses, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedi…
-
Est. OF Lou Bacon v. Adele Bacon, 573 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…entitlement to judgment in the face of the affirmative defenses contained in the beneficiaries’ answer.1 Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Russo v. Ross, 545 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concrete Asfaltico Nacional, 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Puritan Ins. Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). For these [*1036] reasons,2 the summary judgments are reversed and the cause remanded for trial on all issues. This determination moots the pending appeal, no. 90-10…
-
Papi Express, Inc. v. Dosal Tobacco Corp., 677 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…to enter summary judgment in favor of Do-sal. Genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pappagallo Restaurant, Inc., 547 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concreto Asfaltico Nacional, S.A., 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); City of Clearwater v. Thomas, 446 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See Supreme Int’l Corp. v. Air Sea Shipping, Inc., 585 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and cited cases. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for proceedings c…
Authorities Cited
- Emile v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Pandol Bros., Inc. v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 450 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Spear v. Martin, 330 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Arlington Towers Condo. N., Inc. v. Allington Towers N., Inc., 415 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Wilson v. Grady Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Int'l Commercial Props., Inc. v. O'Donnell, 462 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)