ROBERT A. FITZSIMMONS, A MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, THOMAS A. FITZSIMMONS, AND THOMAS A. FITZSIMMONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF PENSACOLA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 court reversed summary judgment for the City of Pensacola, holding that genuine issues of fact existed regarding the city's duty to maintain a dock in safe condition where a minor was injured.
A trial court errs in granting summary judgment when genuine issues of fact exist regarding a defendant's duty to maintain property in a safe condition.
[1] A trial court errs in granting summary judgment when controverted issues of fact exist regarding a property owner's duty to maintain premises in a safe condition.
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 intelligenceA minor plaintiff was injured on a dock or wharf owned by the City of Pensacola. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city on the ground t…
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
LEE, THOMAS E., Associate Judge.
This cause is before this court on the sole issue of the propriety of the trial court entering a summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground there was no genuine issue as to any duty on the part of the defendant to maintain in a safe condition the dock or wharf upon which the minor plaintiff was injured. It is our opinion that the court erred in granting summary judgment.
The pleadings, depositions and oral argument presented to this court have been considered in toto. Norman v. Bank of Hawthorne, Fla.App., 321 So. 2d 112, “A trial court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, may not resolve controverted issues of fact. The principles of law applicable to summary judgment have been heretofore thoroughly discussed by this Court (Connell v. Sledge, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 306 So. 2d 194, Forrest v. Carter, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 308 So. 2d 141 and Burlingham v. Allen, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 317 So. 2d 781, opinion filed August 13, 1975) and nothing will be added to the jurispru dence of this State by again reciting those principles here.” See, also, Campbell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Nexbitt, Fla.App., 265 So. 2d 557.
For the reasons stated, the summary judgment appealed is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
BOYER, C. J., and HATCHETT, JOSEPH W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grady Scott Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Forrest v. Carter, 308 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Florus F. Norman v. Bank OF Hawthorne, 321 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Campbell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 265 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Burlingham v. Allen, 317 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)