49 Fla. L. Weekly D86a ANA DEL CARPIO, Appellant, v. WESTERN BEEF OF FLORIDA, LLC, and WESTERN BEEF RETAIL, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-3434. January 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Luis Delgado, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA008129XXXXMB. Counsel: Ramon Rubio of Rubio Law […]
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — Duty to warn — Uninvited licensee — Action arising out of injuries sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell on elevated apron of defendant’s concrete driveway as she was attempting to cross defendant’s property to access a public sidewalk — Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant after finding that plaintiff was an uninvited licensee when she entered defendant’s property as a matter of her own convenience to access sidewalk — Discussion of difference between public invitee and uninvited licensee — No merit to plaintiff’s argument that because defendant obtained a county permit to install driveway, a portion of which was within the county right-of-way, this equated to an implied invitation for the public to use his driveway
49 Fla. L. Weekly D67a MELANIE CHADWELL NORRIS, Appellant, v. ALAN RODRIGUEZ and FLORA RODRIGUEZ, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-1457. December 29, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Judge. Counsel: Raymond N. Seaford of Law Office of Raymond N. Seaford, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Kansas R. Gooden of […]
Torts — Tortious interference — Damages — Emotional distress — Impact rule — Plaintiff terminated from employment as a result of demand letter defendant had sent to plaintiff’s employer expressing an intent to enforce a non-compete agreement that defendant could not find and was unable to produce — No error in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict and motion to set aside verdict on issue of liability on tortious interference claim — Discussion of the impact rule and its applicability — Impact rule did not bar plaintiff from recovering emotional distress damages because the impact rule does not apply to intentional torts — Conflict certified — Even if impact rule applied to intentional torts generally, it would not apply to tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship where emotional damages were the consequence of conduct that itself was a freestanding tort apart from any emotional injury — Furthermore, impact rule would not apply in instant case even if impact rule applied to tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship because the appellate court cannot exclude possibility that jury found that defendant acted with actual malice — Questions certified: 1) Subject to exceptions previously recognized by the Supreme Court of Florida, does the impact rule generally apply to intentional torts? and 2) Does the impact rule apply to the tort of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship and, if so, does the impact rule apply when such tort is committed with actual malice?
49 Fla. L. Weekly D27e FLORIDA BC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a SYNERGY EQUIPMENT, Appellant, v. JAY E. REESE, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-1379. L.T. Case No. 2017-CA-007010-O. December 21, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Vincent S. Chiu, Judge. Counsel: Michael Fox Orr and Megan Claire Comunale, of Orr | Cook, Jacksonville, […]
Torts — Negligence — Premises liability — Business invitee — Operator of athletic training facility — Failure to properly install and maintain synthetic turf in training area — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of athletic training facility brought by plaintiff who was injured when operator’s employee instructed him to train in area covered with synthetic turf that was allegedly negligently installed or maintained although employee knew or should have known that training in that area was dangerous — Trial court erred in dismissing third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state cause of action against operator — Allegations were sufficient to state basis for holding operator vicariously liable for actions of its employee — Civil procedure — Party may assert inconsistent claims in same pleading, even if claims are mutually exclusive — Plaintiff is not required to separate different theories of relief into different counts in order to avoid dismissal
49 Fla. L. Weekly D56a JYQUIS THOMAS, Appellant, v. TRENCH TRAINING SYSTEMS, LLC; D-1 SPORTS FRANCHISE, LLC; D-1 TRAINING, INC., TAMPA; and TAYLOR SCOTT, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-2857. December 29, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett Lamar Battles, Judge. Counsel: Brian C. Tackenberg, John G. Crabtree, Charles M. Auslander, […]
Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Arbitration — Arbitrable issues — Action stemming from a club physician’s failure to diagnose a potentially fatal condition when evaluating the deceased, a professional baseball player, as part of an evaluation ordered by the deceased’s and physician’s employer, a professional baseball club — Trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration — Arbitration clause in deceased’s player contract did not encompass plaintiff’s claims where claims at issue involve an intra-club dispute, and plain language of arbitration clause applied only to inter-club disputes and disputes between clubs and other major league baseball entities
48 Fla. L. Weekly D2313a CHRISTOPHER and TAMMY COSTELLO as Personal Representative of the ESTATE of RYAN COSTELLO, deceased, Appellants, v. DAVID OLSON, M.D., Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-985. L.T. Case No. 21-CA-006331. December 8, 2023. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Alane Laboda, Judge. […]