Kimball v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-5489.,2D03-5489. |
| Citation | 901 So.2d 293 |
| Parties | Isabelle KIMBALL, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roy D. Wasson and Annabel C. Majewski of Wasson & Associates, Miami; and James D. Dreyer, Jr., of Dreyer & Dreyer, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Richard R. Garland of Dickinson & Gibbons, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.
Isabelle Kimball seeks review of the order granting final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Publix Super Markets, in a personal injury action. Because relevant discovery was still pending, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Further, the trial court erred in denying Kimball's motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for spoliation of evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. We also reverse the trial court's denial of Kimball's motion to amend.
Kimball was injured while shopping in a Publix Super Market when a motorized cart, operated by an unidentified shopper, struck Kimball's cart, which then knocked Kimball to the ground. Kimball filed a complaint alleging negligence by Publix and by the unidentified shopper. The unidentified shopper's name and contact information were obtained by Publix employees at the time of the accident but were lost shortly thereafter. Named as a "Jane Doe" defendant in the complaint, the shopper was never identified or served and was voluntarily dismissed as a party. Publix filed a motion for summary judgment.
A party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000). "Unless the facts of a case have been developed sufficiently to enable the trial court to determine that no issues of fact exist, summary judgment must not be entered." Villages at Mango Key Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Hunter Dev., Inc., 699 So.2d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Thus, it is reversible error to enter summary judgment when relevant discovery is pending. Colby v. Ellis, 562 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Abbate v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 632 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ().
In this case, Kimball served Publix with interrogatories, including a request that Publix provide a list of other incidents involving injuries to Publix shoppers resulting from collisions with motorized shopping carts. Publix objected to the interrogatory, and the trial court later granted Kimball's motion to compel Publix to provide the requested list of any such incidents in the past five years. However, before Publix complied with the discovery order, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Publix. This award of summary judgment was premature.
The list of prior incidents that the trial court ordered Publix to produce pertains to a relevant issue of material fact in Kimball's negligence action against Publix. Specifically, the list could create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Publix had actual or constructive knowledge of prior similar incidents at other similar locations, which may be sufficient to establish foreseeability for purposes of proximate causation. See Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla.1997)
. The issue of foreseeability as it pertains to proximate cause is an issue of fact for the jury unless "it appears to the court highly extraordinary that [the conduct] should have brought about the harm." Id. at 167; McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992). No such finding was made in this case.
For the purposes of ruling on Publix's motion for summary judgment, the trial court assumed that other people have been injured when struck by motorized shopping carts. The trial court then concluded, "I just don't see how there could be any liability merely because there's an accident or that in 750 stores, each one with four electric-powered carts, that that would equate to liability on the part of Publix." This conclusion ignores case law which states that prior similar incidents at other similar locations are relevant to the issue of foreseeability as it pertains to proximate cause. Springtree Props.,692 So.2d at 167. Thus, because discovery regarding a material issue of fact was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diana v. Netjets Services, Inc.
...of first party spoliation. See Smith v. Atkinson, supra, at 429; Hibbits v. Sides, 34 P.3d 327 (Alaska 2001); Kimball v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 901 So.2d 293 (Fla.App.2005); Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., supra, 297 Mont. at 336, 993 P.2d 11; see also Hannah v. Heeter, 213 W.Va. 704, 58......
-
JVN Holdings, Inc. v. Am. Constr. & Repairs, LLC
...would be futile."Kay's Custom Drapes, Inc. v. Garrote, 920 So.2d 1168, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Kimball v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 901 So.2d 293, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ). None of these circumstances is present in the record before us. Such a policy is also reflected in Florida'......
-
Off Lease Only, Inc. v. LeJeune Auto Wholesale, Inc.
...opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile’ ") (quoting Kimball v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 901 So.2d 293, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)...
-
Murga v. United Property & Cas. Ins. Co.
...dismissed. See Kay's Custom Drapes, Inc. v. Garrote, 920 So.2d 1168, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)(quoting Kimball v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 901 So.2d 293, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), that "[r]efusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of the trial court's discretion `unless it clearly appears . . .......