49 Fla. L. Weekly D620a WEBJET LINHAS AEREAS S.A., etc., et al., Appellants, v. ZGA AIRCRAFT LEASING, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1736. L.T. Case No. 15-14374. March 20, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Counsel: King & Spalding LLP, and W. Randall Bassett […]
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Residence — Independent contractors — Business invitees — Open and obvious danger — Summary judgment — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when he slipped on green algae on defendant’s deck while walking to defendant’s front door to drop off paperwork related to lawn services plaintiff’s employer was hired to perform — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiff was the employee of an independent contractor who was injured in the course and scope of performing his contractual duties, and that no reasonable jury could find that the algae was anything but open and obvious — Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in the course of performing his contractual duties where plaintiff was merely entering the property and had not yet begun performing lawn services — Because plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in course of his contractual duties, defendant’s duty to plaintiff should have been analyzed under framework governing a landowner’s duty to business invitees — There was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the dangerous condition of the deck was open and obvious where plaintiff testified that deck did not look wet and defendant himself was uncertain about the deck’s slipperiness — Additionally, regardless of whether hazard was open and obvious, defendant had a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by repairing conditions that defendant anticipates will cause harm — There was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether defendant had properly maintained the deck in a reasonably safe condition and whether he should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury where defendant acknowledged that the deck needed to be maintained during the year and that deck needed to be cleaned at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and agreed that the portion of the deck with the algae on it should not have been walked upon
49 Fla. L. Weekly D610a TEKI WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN WEAVER, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-0324. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-000171. March 15, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Eric C. Roberson, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Kansas R. Gooden, Miami, and Lara Edelstein, […]
Contracts — Formation — Settlement agreement — Enforceability — Evidence — Attorney-client privilege — No error in directing plaintiff to execute settlement agreement and dismiss case — Court rejects argument that there was no settlement agreement because plaintiff wanted a net settlement of $100,000 instead of the gross $100,000 settlement negotiated by plaintiff’s counsel — Competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s former counsel had clear and unequivocal authority from plaintiff to settle the case for the gross amount of $100,000 — Trial court’s finding that plaintiff did not present any evidence other than his own testimony did not demonstrate that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof — Trial court did not err in finding that communications between the parties established a meeting of the minds — Emails between attorneys can constitute an enforceable settlement agreement — Correspondence between the parties’ attorneys in instant action showed that no essential terms remained open or subject to future negotiation — Fact that plaintiff did not sign settlement agreement is not dispositive — Argument that trial court erred in allowing former counsel to testify over plaintiff’s objection to the waiver of his attorney-client privilege was not preserved for appellate review where plaintiff never obtained a ruling on his objection — Regardless, trial court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiff had waived privilege by discussing confidential communications with his former counsel during plaintiff’s testimony — Additionally, plaintiff waived his attorney-client privilege by claiming that his former counsel lacked authority to settle the case on plaintiff’s behalf
49 Fla. L. Weekly D599a CARY PORTNER, Appellant, v. GIL KOPPEL and ALEKSANDRA KOPPEL, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-1017. March 13, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Maxine Cheesman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-CA-013227-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Nicole Nicolette Mace and Curt Sanchez of the Law Offices of […]
Civil procedure — Default judgment — Relief from judgment — Service of process — Return of service — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to quash service and vacate final default judgment based on determination that service was invalid because return of service was facially invalid — Plaintiff met initial burden of establishing validity of service where four corners of return of service contained all elements required by section 48.21(1) — Return of service was not facially invalid because of a minor misspelling in the name of the person served — While a party challenging service may shift the burden back to the party seeking the court’s jurisdiction by presenting a prima facie case demonstrating that the return of service is defective, affidavits presented by defendant’s corporate officers did not challenge the facial validity of the return of service, but the validity of the service itself — Because the burden to prove improper service by clear and convincing evidence had shifted to defendant, and court made no findings as to whether defendant presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumptively valid service or whether the witnesses were credible, the matter is remanded for further proceedings, including a new evidentiary hearing
49 Fla. L. Weekly D614a TIMOTHY GIBSON, Appellant, v. STAR COLLISION AND TOWING, LLC, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-1332. March 15, 2024. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Hillsborough County; James S. Giardina, Judge. Counsel: Jacquelyn M. Codd and Ramil A. Kaminsky of RAK Law, PLLC, Lakeland, […]
Civil procedure — Complaint — Amendments — Addition of party — Appeals — Appeal of order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her second amended complaint to add an entirely new party is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Rule 9.110(k) did not provide appellate court with jurisdiction where, although plaintiff also appealed an order granting partial final summary judgment and had filed her motion to amend prior to trial court’s summary judgment ruling, plaintiff’s motion to add a new defendant was not directly related to summary judgment order on appeal — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(3) because entire case below has not concluded and an order denying leave to amend to add a defendant is not one of the enumerated nonfinal orders separately appealable under the rule — Plaintiff is not entitled to certiorari relief because she has not shown requisite irreparable harm
49 Fla. L. Weekly D606a SARAH S. SONA, Appellant, v. FOUNDATION SERVICES OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., STONE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC, CIRACO UNDERGROUND, INC., ANDREYEV ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2558. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-0026. March 15, 2024. On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. […]