Butler v. Teichner & Mella, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Butler v. Teichner & Mella, P.A.

599 So. 2d 283, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6226, 1992 WL 123505

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1992

DocketNo. 91-715

StatusPublished

This text of 599 So. 2d 283 (Butler v. Teichner & Mella, P.A.) 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

Butler v. Teichner & Mella, P.A., 599 So. 2d 283, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6226, 1992 WL 123505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Butler, plaintiff below, appeals a post-trial order entering judgment in favor of defendants in a personal injury ac[284]*284tion. Anthony Butler, the father of Patrice Butler, made a derivative claim for loss of his child’s companionship, support, and services. The claim was asserted in a suit alleging serious injury to the daughter owing to medical malpractice. Timely notices of intent to sue were submitted on behalf of the mother and daughter under section 768.57, Florida Statutes (1987), but no notice of intent was filed on Anthony Butler’s behalf. After a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, on post-trial motion the trial court concluded that the absence of a separate notice of intent was fatal to Anthony Butler’s claim.

Butler contends that appellees’ objection regarding his notice of intent was not properly made below and that the issue was therefore waived. After review of the record, we conclude that the objection was not waived.

However, turning to the merits, we conclude that the post-trial ruling with respect to the notice of intent to sue must be reversed under authority of Chandler v. Novak, 596 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (en banc). The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Butler, plaintiff below, appeals a post-trial order entering judgment in favor of defendants in a personal injury ac[284]*284tion. Anthony Butler, the father of Patrice Butler, made a derivative claim for loss of his child’s companionship, support, and services. The claim was asserted in a suit alleging serious injury to the daughter owing to medical malpractice. Timely notices of intent to sue were submitted on behalf of the mother and daughter under section 768.57, Florida Statutes (1987), but no notice of intent was filed on Anthony Butler’s behalf. After a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, on post-trial motion the trial court concluded that the absence of a separate notice of intent was fatal to Anthony Butler’s claim.

Butler contends that appellees’ objection regarding his notice of intent was not properly made below and that the issue was therefore waived. After review of the record, we conclude that the objection was not waived.

However, turning to the merits, we conclude that the post-trial ruling with respect to the notice of intent to sue must be reversed under authority of Chandler v. Novak, 596 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (en banc). The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 283, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6226, 1992 WL 123505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-teichner-mella-pa-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack