Broz v. Continental Elevator Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Broz v. Continental Elevator Services

697 So. 2d 548, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7721, 1997 WL 375448

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4020

StatusPublished

This text of 697 So. 2d 548 (Broz v. Continental Elevator Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broz v. Continental Elevator Services, 697 So. 2d 548, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7721, 1997 WL 375448 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the plaintiffs in a negligence action in the trial court, challenge a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We determine that issues of material fact existed which should have precluded entry of the summary judgment, and reverse.

Appellant, Mary Broz, an inspector for the navy on a construction project, brought an action based on injuries she received during an inspection of the project at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The defendants, contractors, were responsible for replacing an elevator gate and tracks as part of the construction project. Ms. Broz alleges that she was injured when attempting to open the stuck elevator door and that appellees’ failure to replace the old gate tracks caused the door to malfunction.

The trial court found that the old elevator gate was still on the project at the time of the inspection, that the inspection was an internal navy review, that the construction work was not completed at the time of the incident, and that the defendants had not made any representations that the repair work was completed. Based upon these conclusions, the trial court stated that the completion (or the failure to complete) the contract was not a legal cause of any injury to the plaintiff. At the time of the summary judgment hearing, however, depositions were on file which indicated that each of the material facts relied on by the court in granting summary judgment were in dispute. The trial court, therefore, erred in granting summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

[549]*549JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissenting without written opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the plaintiffs in a negligence action in the trial court, challenge a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We determine that issues of material fact existed which should have precluded entry of the summary judgment, and reverse.

Appellant, Mary Broz, an inspector for the navy on a construction project, brought an action based on injuries she received during an inspection of the project at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The defendants, contractors, were responsible for replacing an elevator gate and tracks as part of the construction project. Ms. Broz alleges that she was injured when attempting to open the stuck elevator door and that appellees’ failure to replace the old gate tracks caused the door to malfunction.

The trial court found that the old elevator gate was still on the project at the time of the inspection, that the inspection was an internal navy review, that the construction work was not completed at the time of the incident, and that the defendants had not made any representations that the repair work was completed. Based upon these conclusions, the trial court stated that the completion (or the failure to complete) the contract was not a legal cause of any injury to the plaintiff. At the time of the summary judgment hearing, however, depositions were on file which indicated that each of the material facts relied on by the court in granting summary judgment were in dispute. The trial court, therefore, erred in granting summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

[549]*549JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissenting without written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 548, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7721, 1997 WL 375448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broz-v-continental-elevator-services-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack