49 Fla. L. Weekly D668a JEAN FRANCOIS RIGOLLET, Appellant, v. LE MACARON DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ROSALIE GUILLEM; BERNARD GUILLEM; and DIDIER SABA, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-564. March 27, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, Judge. Counsel: Jean François Rigollet, pro se. Kimberly D. Thresher and Dennis D. Leone of […]
Articles
Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Gross negligence — Action brought against movie theater stemming from injuries plaintiff sustained when she was trampled by a crowd fleeing the theater after being alerted of an active shooter by theater employees — No error in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against movie theater — Allegations pleaded in proposed amended complaint, which alleged that movie theater was grossly negligent in failing to adequately train its employees and ensure that theater’s policies and procedures were followed so as to prevent the panic and confusion that injured plaintiff, did not rise to the level of gross negligence necessary for punitive damages claim to proceed — Even assuming the legal sufficiency of proposed amended complaint, plaintiff failed to make a “reasonable showing” of a “reasonable basis” for the recovery of punitive damages, as required by section 768.72 — With regard to any claim that theater was vicariously liable for punitive damages because of the conduct of its employees, plaintiff’s argument that the employees’ conduct in evacuating the theater violated theater’s policies precludes a reasonable evidentiary basis that theater participated in the conduct or otherwise condoned, ratified, or consented to the conduct — As to any claim of direct liability because of an alleged failure to adequately train employees, there was no reasonable evidentiary basis for a jury to conclude that theater itself engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the loss, damages, or injury suffered by plaintiff
49 Fla. L. Weekly D692a FAYE CRUMP, Appellant, v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC. d/b/a AMC, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2671. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-002883-11J-L. March 28, 2024. Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County. Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge. Counsel: Josef Timlichman, of Josef Timlichman Law, PLLC, Aventura, for Appellant. R. David McLaughlin, and […]
Torts — Pedestrian struck by vehicle — Plaintiff permanently and severely injured when he was struck and pinned between two vehicles when defendant reversed out of a parking space — Punitive damages — Trial court did not err in allowing plaintiff to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages on basis that driver was intoxicated when she struck plaintiff with car owned by codefendant — Record confirms that trial court considered and weighed evidence offered by parties, acted as a factfinder, and performed its gatekeeper role in concluding that plaintiff provided reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages
49 Fla. L. Weekly D678a GISELLE GATTORNO and DAVID IGLESIAS, Appellants, v. STEVEN SOUTO, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-0639. L.T. Case No. 21-22353. March 27, 2024. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez and Carly M. […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Multiple accidents — Venue — Severance of claims — Complaint — Amendment — Plaintiff involved in two successive motor vehicle accidents — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to sever and transfer portion of plaintiff’s complaint based on determination that the two accidents were not sufficiently intertwined because they involved different counties, different injured parties, different patient treatments, and occurred over three years apart — Trial court’s focus should have been on plaintiff’s injuries rather than the circumstances of the accidents — A plaintiff who is injured in two successive accidents may bring one suit where the accidents cause the same or similar injuries and it is difficult or impossible to apportion the injuries between the two tortfeasors — Although a plaintiff did not clearly allege in his original complaint that his injuries were difficult or impossible to apportion as he was required to do, plaintiff should have been given the opportunity to amend his complaint where amendment would not prejudice defendant and request to amend was timely
49 Fla. L. Weekly D648a ISMAEL PEREIRA, Appellant, v. EMILY JONES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Wilkes, and GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2197. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-001490-A. March 22, 2024. Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Dan R. Mosley, Judge. Counsel: Aaron Sprague and Stefano […]
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Joint proposal — Validity — Trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to their joint proposal for settlement based on determination that proposal was invalid because it failed to apportion settlement amount between the two offerors as required by procedural rule governing joint proposals — Although proposal was a joint proposal governed by rule 1.442(c)(3), the rule’s apportionment requirement was not applicable where complaint alleged that one offeror was merely constructively liable for the damages caused by co-offeror’s breach of contract
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 […]