MARY F. HENLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
EASTERN AIRLINES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court reversed summary judgment for the airport authority and airline, finding material factual issues regarding the baggage handler's employment and negligence that precluded judgment as a matter of law.
Summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact existed regarding who employed the baggage handler and whether he was negligent.
[1] In negligence actions, summary judgment is proper only when the movant shows unequivocally the absence of negligence or that plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate…
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“Unless a movant can show unequivocally that there was no negligence, or that plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury, courts will not be disposed to granting a summary judgment.”
Standard for summary judgment in negligence cases, citing Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Henley was standing in a curbside baggage check-in line at Orlando Regional Aviation Authority on October 1, 1986, when she stepped backward as a bagg…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from entry of a final summary judgment in favor of appellees, Orlando Regional Aviation Authority and Eastern Airlines.
A party moving for summary judgment must “show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact” and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla.1977) [emphasis in original]. The movant’s burden is even more onerous in negligence actions where summary judgment procedures historically have been employed with special care. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). “Unless a movant can show unequivocally that there was no negligence, or that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury, courts will not be disposed to granting a summary judgment.” Wills, 351 So. 2d at 31.
Appellant Henley was standing in a curbside baggage check-in line outside the terminal at Orlando Regional Aviation Authority on October 1, 1986. She apparently stepped backwards when the baggage handler came to pick up her bags and fell over another passenger’s box. Because we think the record presents material issues as to who employed the baggage handler and whether he was negligent, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Bravo v. Chapkis, 549 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Farrar v. Arthur, 544 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Farrar v. Arthur, 544 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Bravo v. Chapkis, 549 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)