North Shore Laboratories Corp. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

North Shore Laboratories Corp. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C.

886 So. 2d 419, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17296, 2004 WL 2579618

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-0563

StatusPublished

This text of 886 So. 2d 419 (North Shore Laboratories Corp. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C.) 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

North Shore Laboratories Corp. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, L.L.C., 886 So. 2d 419, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17296, 2004 WL 2579618 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the implicit ruling of the trial court, the appellants, co-defendants with the appellees in a products liability suit arising out of a vehicle accident, were entitled to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact precluding the granting of final summary judgment to the appellees. U-Haul Co. of East Bay v. Meyer, 586 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The affidavit of the appellants’ expert witness demonstrated such a genuine dispute as to the causation of the tire failure which resulted in the vehicle accident. The final summary judgment for the appellees is therefore REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial [420]*420court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the implicit ruling of the trial court, the appellants, co-defendants with the appellees in a products liability suit arising out of a vehicle accident, were entitled to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact precluding the granting of final summary judgment to the appellees. U-Haul Co. of East Bay v. Meyer, 586 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The affidavit of the appellants’ expert witness demonstrated such a genuine dispute as to the causation of the tire failure which resulted in the vehicle accident. The final summary judgment for the appellees is therefore REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial [420]*420court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOOTH, BARFIELD, and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 So. 2d 419, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17296, 2004 WL 2579618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-shore-laboratories-corp-v-bridgestonefirestone-north-america-tire-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack