Howard v. Shirmer
| Decision Date | 02 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--930,75--930 |
| Citation | 334 So.2d 103 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Felix HOWARD and Ana Marie Howard, Appellants, v. Richard SHIRMER, Jr., etc., et al., Appellees. |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for appellants.
Joel R. Teague, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal a summary final judgment as to The Miami Herald Publishing Company, one of several defendants in this negligence action.
Plaintiff Felix Howard was injured when the truck beneath which he was working was hit by a van driven by defendant Richard Shirmer. Howard and his wife sued Shirmer and through discovery learned he was a newsdealer for the Miami Herald. Thereupon, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the Herald as an additional party defendant on the allegation that Shirmer was its employee. The Herald answered alleging that Shirmer was an independent contractor. Shirmer's deposition also reflects that he considered himself to be self-employed. Subsequently, the Herald filed a motion for summary judgment and attached supporting affidavits together with the Independent Newsdealer's Contract entered into with Shirmer. The trial court granted summary final judgment in favor of the Herald based upon the finding that on the date of the accident Shirmer was an independent contractor. Thereafter, the Howards filed a motion for rehearing and a motion for leave to take additional testimony of Mr. Kitson, the person at the Miami Herald who allegedly has the decision making powers concerning such matters as the termination of a newsdealer's contract. The motion was denied. We affirm.
With regard to plaintiffs' contention that the court erred in denying their motion for leave to take additional testimony, the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to depose Mr. Kitson before the hearing on the Herald's motion for summary judgment. Further, if they believed that they did not have adequate time to take Mr. Kitson's deposition, then they should have moved for a continuance pursuant to RCP 1.510(f) to afford them the additional time needed. Plaintiffs have failed to pursue the proper procedural options open to them. Cf. McNutt v. Sherrill, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 309; CIA. Ecuatoriana De Aviacion v. U.S. & Overseas Corp., Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 338.
We find no merit in plaintiffs' argument that the court erred in its entry of summary judgment for the Miami Herald. See Miami Herald Publishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper ex rel. Daley v. Toler
...that carrier was an independent contractor and stating that case was "factually analogous" to Kendall); Howard v. Shirmer, 334 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (affirming summary judgment in favor of newspaper, which was based on conclusion that carrier under "Independent Newsdealer's Cont......
- Banks v. Hyatt Corp.
-
Leviton v. Philly Steak-Out, Inc.
...Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So.2d 832 (Fla.1978); Howard v. Shirmer, 334 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Fla.R.Civ.P. Second, we find no merit in the defendants' points that their affirmative defenses and counterclaim were never d......
- Drake v. Sun Bank and Trust Co. of St. Petersburg
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...with the summary judgment hearing without permitting the appellant the opportunity for any further discovery); Howard v. Shirmer, 334 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (because plaintiffs did not move for a continuance to give them additional time to take a deposition, there was no merit i......