Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Gomis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Gomis

367 So. 2d 722, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1339

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 367 So. 2d 722 (Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Gomis) 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

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Gomis, 367 So. 2d 722, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The plaintiff did not, as Section 440-39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) requires, sustain his burden of proof or “demonstrate to the court” that he “did not recover the full value of damages sustained” in his action against a third-party tortfeasor. Nevertheless, the trial judge awarded the appellants, who are the plaintiff’s employer and workmen’s compensation carrier, only 15% of the compensation benefits paid and payable, rather than the 50%¹ “pro rata” share of the plaintiff’s benefits then required by the statute in the absence of such [723]*723a showing. This was error. Ramar-Dooley Construction Co. v. Norris, 341 So.2d 546 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The order on petition for equitable distribution now under review is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to conduct a new hearing on the plaintiff’s petition.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The plaintiff did not, as Section 440-39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) requires, sustain his burden of proof or “demonstrate to the court” that he “did not recover the full value of damages sustained” in his action against a third-party tortfeasor. Nevertheless, the trial judge awarded the appellants, who are the plaintiff’s employer and workmen’s compensation carrier, only 15% of the compensation benefits paid and payable, rather than the 50%¹ “pro rata” share of the plaintiff’s benefits then required by the statute in the absence of such [723]*723a showing. This was error. Ramar-Dooley Construction Co. v. Norris, 341 So.2d 546 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The order on petition for equitable distribution now under review is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to conduct a new hearing on the plaintiff’s petition.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 So. 2d 722, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/publix-super-markets-inc-v-gomis-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack