Hoyt v. Galbreath

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoyt v. Galbreath

135 So. 2d 875

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1961

DocketNo. 60-610

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 So. 2d 875 (Hoyt v. Galbreath) 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

Hoyt v. Galbreath, 135 So. 2d 875 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

The trial judge determined that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a guest passenger in the car of the defendant, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish gross negligence.

The movant for a summary judgment admits the basic facts established, which are favorable to the adverse party, and every conclusion or inference favorable to the adversary that might reasonably [876]*876be inferred from the evidence. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915, 918. The court, in the Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, supra, goes on to say:

“When the facts established on defendant’s motion for a summary judgment clearly show there is no genuine issue of any material fact, then the court may pierce the ‘paper-issues’ made by the pleadings and render judgment on the merits for the defendant, because of the want of any genuine issue as to any material fact; * * *

A review of the record in this case clearly shows that there is no issue of material fact. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding for the defendant on the question of gross negligence. See: F.S.A. § 320.59; Dye v. Freeman, Fla.App. 1959, 116 So.2d 647; Vihon v. McCormick, Fla.App. 1958, 109 So.2d 400.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

The trial judge determined that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a guest passenger in the car of the defendant, was insufficient as a matter of law to establish gross negligence.

The movant for a summary judgment admits the basic facts established, which are favorable to the adverse party, and every conclusion or inference favorable to the adversary that might reasonably [876]*876be inferred from the evidence. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915, 918. The court, in the Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, supra, goes on to say:

“When the facts established on defendant’s motion for a summary judgment clearly show there is no genuine issue of any material fact, then the court may pierce the ‘paper-issues’ made by the pleadings and render judgment on the merits for the defendant, because of the want of any genuine issue as to any material fact; * * *

A review of the record in this case clearly shows that there is no issue of material fact. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding for the defendant on the question of gross negligence. See: F.S.A. § 320.59; Dye v. Freeman, Fla.App. 1959, 116 So.2d 647; Vihon v. McCormick, Fla.App. 1958, 109 So.2d 400.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-galbreath-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack