Pullman Co. v. Fleishel
| Decision Date | 18 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A-233,A-233 |
| Parties | The PULLMAN COMPANY, Appellant, v. Marie B. FLEISHEL and M. L. Fleishel, her husband, and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Loftin & Wahl, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Mitchell, Donahoo & Rogers, Bedell & Bedell, Jacksonville, for respondents Marie B. Fleishel, et al.
Scott & Cox, Jacksonville, for respondent Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co.
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order entered by the Circuit Court of Duval County denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment in a law action.
Suit was instituted by the Fleishels to recover damages resulting from personal injuries and expenses incurred as a result of alleged negligence of the railroad company and the Pullman Company. Before answering, the Pullman Company took the depositions of plaintiffs; and plaintiffs likewise took depositions of various of defendant's employees who had knowledge of the occurrences out of which the cause arose. Petitioner thereupon filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on the theory that plaintiffs' admissions conclusively showed that plaintiffs' own negligence was the sole proximate cause of their injuries, if any. It is to review the trial court's order denying its motion that petitioner here seeks certiorari. The first and controlling question is whether the petitioner has demonstrated a right to the writ it now seeks.
Under our rules of procedure, all appellate review shall be by appeal except where review by certiorari is permitted. 1 Appeal from an interlocutory order in a common law action may action may be taken only when such order relates to questions of venue or jurisdiction over the person. 2
This court has recently had occasion to define the class of interlocutory orders at law which will be reviewed by common law certiorari. 3 We held that certiorari would be granted only in those cases in which it clearly appeared there was no full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner by appeal after final judgment. Illustrative of the type of case in which review by certiorari will be considered is one in which the trial court has acted without and in excess of its jurisdiction, or its order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate.
In essence, petitioner urges that under the circumstances in this case the trial court's denial of its motion constitutes error in that it does not conform to the essential requirements of law for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal. This contention is predicated upon the assertion that petitioner will be unduly prejudiced and harassed if forced to assume the burden and expense of defending the suit.
Our research has failed to reveal any authority, and none has been cited by petitioner, which authorizes the granting of certiorari to review an order denying summary judgment in an action at law. It is indisputable that the necessity of defending any legal action can be burdensome and vexatious. Such, however, is one of the hazards of living and doing business under a system of free...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Diaz
...Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). The plaintiffs' continuation of the action below did not constitute a detrimental change in legal position and did not ren......
-
Gadsden County Times Inc. v. Horne
...may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate. Pullman Company v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Tallahassee Democrat v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); and West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Williams, 3......
-
Hubacher v. Landry
...v. Nelson, 355 So.2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 350 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). There is another compelling consideration which supports the result which we reach in this case. It is the medical d......
-
White v. Spears, 60-384
...orders at law which are reviewable upon appeal from the final decree. Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 188; cf. Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 648, 652. The exceptions are those where 'the lower court acts witho......