KRISTINE AND CHARLES HOLLIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
VALUE RENT-A-CAR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 held that summary judgment was premature because the record did not demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Appellants sued Ford Motor Company after a one-car accident involving a Ford vehicle. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing appellants could not pr…
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 Res Ipsa Loquitur cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, the plaintiffs below, appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Ford Motor Company.
This is a suit arising out of a one-car accident involving appellants while driving an automobile manufactured by appellee, Ford Motor Company (Ford), and leased from Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. Ford moved for and was granted a summary judgment based upon the theory that appellants could not prove any direct negligence, nor could they successfully rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, counsel represented to the court that the discovery theretofore engaged in demonstrated that appellants would not present any evidence of direct negligence at trial and would rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to prove a prima facie case. Based upon that assumption, Ford argued that the appellants could not make out a prima facie case and thus it was entitled to summary judgment.
Appellants contend the depositions and interrogatories do not make it clear that they will be unable to present a justiciable issue at trial. Not only do they take issue with Ford over what is proven in the depositions and interrogatories, but none of the depositions or answers to interrogatories was presented to the trial court, nor are they present in the record before this court.
Accordingly, the record does not show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, making the entry of summary judgment premature. We, therefore, remand the cause for further proceedings.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., and WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abner M. Contreras v. Fernandez (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ontains words of finality nor enters a dismissal in Appellee David Fernandez’s favor. Because this is not a final order capable of review, we lack jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Henrion v. New Era Realty IV, Inc., 567 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“Once again we caution trial judges and attorneys alike that this court lacks jurisdiction over an order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint, when that order does not contain the requisite words of finality indicating…