Schlakman v. Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, 86-2974
| Decision Date | 03 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2974,86-2974 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2521, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2836 Joann SCHLAKMAN, Appellant, v. HELLIWELL, MELROSE & DeWOLF, a Partnership, Douglas S. Lyons and Jorden Melrose & Schuette, P.A., a Professional Association, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Storace & Lupino and James Lupino, Miami, for appellant.
Lisa Bennett, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL PEARSON, JJ.
The appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing her complaint for lack of prosecution.
On May 5, 1977, the appellant was allegedly, severely and permanently injured when she slipped and fell at a Burger King restaurant. The appellees undertook the representation of the appellant's claim against Burger King but allegedly failed to settle or institute litigation within the Statute of Limitations time period, causing the appellant to lose her cause of action. On January 26, 1984, the appellant filed a legal malpractice action against the appellees through her attorney L. Joseph Hoffman, who later withdrew from the case. On April 25, 1985, the appellant filed a Notice of Appearance on her own behalf. Subsequently, in May of 1985, the appellant's file was turned over to another law firm which eventually decided in September of 1985 that the firm would not be able to handle the case. Throughout this entire time period, the appellant continued to be periodically bedridden due to her injuries as a result of her fall at Burger King, as well as a thyroid condition. On May 27, 1986, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution to which the appellant responded, alleging that due to the severity of her injuries she was completely dependent upon her attorneys. The appellee's motion to dismiss was granted by the trial judge. We reverse.
Physical disability of a plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney constitutes good cause, justifying a trial court's refusal to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules Civil Procedure. Barnes v. Ross, 386 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Douglas v. Eiriksson, 347 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Co., 317 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Although the degree of the disability required in order to constitute good cause for the trial court to retain the cause on the court's calendar is unclear, the collective decisions have resolved this question in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. Schmitt
...representative's ill-health and ultimate death constituted good cause for the action to remain pending. See Schlakman v. Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, 519 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The order denying this first motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was filed on December 28, 1987. The ......
-
Pitts v. Pastore
...evidence to support the trial court's finding that this failure related to Mr. Pastore's poor health. See Schlakman v. Helliwell, Melrose, & DeWolf, 519 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).3 Mr. Pitts did not raise or argue a statute of limitations defense based on section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Stat......
-
City of Melbourne v. Haddock
...a substantial portion of the period in question. Douglas v. Eiriksson, 347 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Schlakman v. Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, 519 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. The instant record reveals that, in addition to being hospitalized for several month......
-
Lenion v. Calohan
...court's refusal to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 1.420(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure." Schlakman v. Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, 519 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). See Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Co., 317 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) and Douglas v. Eiriksson,......