SUTHERLUND EX REL. SUTHERLAND v. Pell, 98-03372.
Decision Date | 11 August 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-03372.,98-03372. |
Citation | 738 So.2d 1016 |
Parties | Calie Nicole SUTHERLAND, a minor, by her parents and next friends, Sherri SUTHERLAND and Douglas Sutherland, Appellant, v. Edward L. PELL, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gwynne A. Young and Eric S. Adams of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, and Sylvia H. Walbolt and Robert E. Biasotti of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Richard R. Garland of Dickinson & Gibbons, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.
The Sutherlands appeal a summary final judgment entered in favor of Edward Pell. We reverse because the motion for summary judgment, supported only by Mr. Pell's conclusory affidavit, fails to establish that there were no material issues of fact in this dog bite case.
Calie Sutherland and her family were visiting the home of a friend, William Douglas, in March 1994. Calie was three years old at the time. One of Mr. Douglas's two Rottweilers attacked Calie while she was inside Mr. Douglas's home. Mr. Douglas rented his house from Mr. Pell.
On January 14, 1998, the Sutherlands filed their lawsuit against Mr. Pell, alleging the dog that attacked Calie was vicious, and that Mr. Pell, as the landlord, had actual or constructive knowledge of its viciousness. Thus, this dog bite case is based on the common law, not on statutory liability. See § 767.04, Fla. Stat. (1997) ( ); Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ( ); Noble v. Yorke, 490 So.2d 29 (Fla.1986) ( ).
The record contains no answer or motion to dismiss, although there are references under oath to an answer having been filed on January 22, 1998. The first motion of record is a motion for summary judgment filed by Mr. Pell on March 18, 1998. This motion was supported only by his affidavit, which states that he had "no knowledge, actual, constructive or imputed" as to the nature, behavior, or vicious propensities of the dog that attacked Calie. In April, the Sutherlands filed an affidavit signed by Mr. Douglas stating that (1) Mr. Pell had given him permission to have two Rottweillers on the rental property, (2) Mr. Pell walked by the property on more than one occasion, and (3) Mr. Pell had talked to him on occasions when the dogs were in view. On May 11, 1998, before any depositions or other discovery had occurred, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Sutherlands filed a motion for rehearing, arguing primarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 2D02-5802.
...form had been altered. When motions for summary judgment turn on issues of credibility, summary judgment is improper. Sutherland v. Pell, 738 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). There were still other factual matters in dispute, such as the pharmacist's noting on the back of the prescription tha......
-
Brockney v. Centel Cellular Co.
..."Constructive knowledge is a fact-intensive issue based on information that a party `should have known.'" Sutherland ex rel. Sutherland v. Pell, 738 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citations omitted). Because there was conflicting testimony regarding the visibility of the steel cable a......
-
Verchick v. Hecht Investments, Ltd.
... ... for the summary judgment proceedings); see also Sutherland v. Pell, 738 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA ... 1999); Gimenez v ... ...
-
Negligence cases
...landlord knows dog is vicious and has sufficient control of premises to protect plaintiff. Source Sutherlund ex rel. Sutherland v. Pell , 738 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 2nd DCA1999) citing Vasques v. Lopez, 509 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also 1. Ward v. Young , 504 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2nd ......