SUSAN M. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. AND MILTON R. JENDER, 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.
Appellant Taylor challenged a summary judgment in a personal injury action against Liberty Mutual Insurance and driver Milton Jender. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment even though Taylor failed to file opposing affidavits.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained for trial. The defendants failed to sustain their burden of proving the nonexistence of genuine triable issues, despite the plaintiff's failure to file opposing affidavits.
[1] A motion for summary judgment requires the movant to prove the nonexistence of genuine triable issues.
[2] A defendant's affidavit stating the accident was caused by the plaintiff's driver turning into their lane without signaling may not be sufficient to establish the absence…
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“Clearly, many factual matters remain to be resolved by the trier of the facts, i. e., the jury. In effect, the testimony adduced in the affidavit, supra, does no more than substantiate appellees' contention alleged in their answer of a general denial of negligence.”
Establishes that a bare general denial without substantive factual support is insufficient to support summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was a passenger in a vehicle that was hit from behind by Jender's vehicle. Jender filed an affidavit supporting the summary judgment motion, st…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant/plaintiff on this appeal attacks the correctness of a summary judgment rendered in favor of the appellees/de-fendants in a personal injury action. In entering such judgment the trial court necessarily found no genuine issue of material fact to exist between the parties. Rule 1.510(c), FRCP, 31 F.S.A.
Appellees’ counsel before the court strongly urged that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on authority of Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 780. We disagree. The cited case is distinguishable on facts from the instant case. The affidavit filed in support of the motion for summary judgment which was signed by Milton R. Jender, appellee/defendant, the driver of the vehicle that collided in the rear of the vehicle in which Susan M. Taylor was a passenger, in pertinent part discloses the following facts:
1. Affiant’s name is MILTON R. JENDER.
2. I am the defendant in the captioned case.
3. At the time of the accident which is the subject of this case, I was proceeding north in the lane nearest the curb on Ninth Street North in St. Pe-tersburg at a lawful speed within the speed limit.
4. The subject accident was caused by the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding, turning into my lane without giving a proper signal.
Clearly, many factual matters remain to be resolved by the trier of the facts, i. e., the jury. In effect, the testimony adduced in the affidavit, supra, does no more than substantiate appellees’ contention alleged in their answer of a general denial of negligence.
It is true that appellant did not elect to file opposing affidavits to the motion for summary judgment; notwithstanding, in this case we find on the basis of our review of the record, briefs and oral argument that the movants, appellees, failed to sustain the burden of proving the nonexistence of genuine triable issues. See Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY, A. C. J., BOARDMAN, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Jr., Associate Judge, 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)
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)