MARIA AND ROBERT MUTHIG, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC., 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.
The Florida appellate court reversed a directed verdict and summary judgment in a maritime slip-and-fall case, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence precluded judgment as a matter of law.
A directed verdict and summary judgment were improper where evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's negligence in a slip-and-fall case.
[1] In a negligence action, summary judgment should be cautiously granted and only when the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Summary judgments should be cautiously granted in negligence suits. A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law.”
Court citing Moore v. Morris regarding the proper standard for summary judgment in negligence cases.
Maria and Robert Muthig were injured in a slip-and-fall incident on a Carnival Cruise Lines vessel. The trial court declared a mistrial sua sponte at …
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 Maritime Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria and Robert Muthig appeal from an order granting Carnival Cruise Lines’ motion for directed verdict and summary judgment in a maritime slip and fall case.1 For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Evidence in trial created genuine issues of material fact as to Carnival Cruise Lines’ negligence; therefore, it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict and/or grant summary judgment. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (“Summary judgments should be cautiously granted in negligence ... suits_ A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law”) (citations omitted); Mabrey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 438 So. 2d 937 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (a directed verdict in a slip and fall case should not be granted unless the evidence is of such a nature that under no view could a verdict for the adverse party be upheld).
Reversed and remanded.
. The unusual procedural posture of this case results from the trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial over plaintiffs and defendant’s objection at the close of all the evidence and reservation of ruling on Carnival Cruise Lines' motion for directed verdict. This appeal is based upon an order simultaneously granting defense motions for both directed verdict and summary judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. McCRORY Corp., 567 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ated where there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Consolidated was negligent in packaging its product. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Muthig v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 549 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The allegations set forth in the amended complaint and the deposition testimony given by Carlin, Hall and Gifford are more than adequate to establish a jury question with regard to Consolidated’s alleged negligence. See Suggs v.…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Mabrey v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 438 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)