Gonzalez v. Veloso

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. Veloso

702 So. 2d 1366, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14574, 1997 WL 793110

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1194

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 1366 (Gonzalez v. Veloso) 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

Gonzalez v. Veloso, 702 So. 2d 1366, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14574, 1997 WL 793110 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing we withdraw this Court’s previous opinion and substitute the following opinion:

Appellant, Caridad Gonzalez (“Caridad”), appeals a final judgment claiming the trial court erred in allowing a settling co-defendant’s name to be placed on the jury verdict form for apportionment of damages. We reverse.

Simply, the appellee-defendant, Dr. Veloso (“Veloso”), had the burden of presenting evidence at trial that the nonparty settling co-defendant’s fault contributed to the accident in order to include the nonparty’s name on the jury verdict. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996). Veloso failed to satisfy his burden of presenting competent substantial evidence to establish the fault of the nonparty settling co-defendant. Accordingly, the final judgment apportioning the nonparty’s negligence is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for Caridad against Veloso in the aggregate full amount. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So.2d at 1262.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing we withdraw this Court’s previous opinion and substitute the following opinion:

Appellant, Caridad Gonzalez (“Caridad”), appeals a final judgment claiming the trial court erred in allowing a settling co-defendant’s name to be placed on the jury verdict form for apportionment of damages. We reverse.

Simply, the appellee-defendant, Dr. Veloso (“Veloso”), had the burden of presenting evidence at trial that the nonparty settling co-defendant’s fault contributed to the accident in order to include the nonparty’s name on the jury verdict. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 1996). Veloso failed to satisfy his burden of presenting competent substantial evidence to establish the fault of the nonparty settling co-defendant. Accordingly, the final judgment apportioning the nonparty’s negligence is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for Caridad against Veloso in the aggregate full amount. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So.2d at 1262.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 1366, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 14574, 1997 WL 793110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-veloso-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack