From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MARQUEZ v. HEIM CORP

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 4, 1994
632 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

reversing summary judgment because plaintiff's expert testified that using the machine without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator

Summary of this case from Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A.

Opinion

No. 92-1805.

December 15, 1993. As Amended March 4, 1994. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, James C. Henderson, J.

Beckham Beckham and Pamela Beckham, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Behan and Hektner and Kelly A. Cambron, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.


While operating a press brake machine at Warren Manufacturing, Pedro Marquez severed his index finger. The press brake involved lacked point-of-operation guards. Marquez filed an action against Winfield Kelly, the president of the company, alleging willful or wanton conduct or gross negligence. Marquez presented evidence that Kelly was responsible for the safety of the work area but failed to install safety devices despite his knowledge of prior press brake injuries to other employees. He presented expert testimony that the regular use of a brake press without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant. We reverse.

The incident occurred Oct. 13, 1986.

A summary judgment cannot stand where genuine issues of material fact exist. Sun Chevrolet v. Crespo, 613 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this case the evidence is conflicting with regard to whether Kelly knew about the safety problems and whether his conduct amounted to gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for Marquez's safety. Summary judgment is therefore precluded. See, e.g., Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Sys. Inc., 601 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Courtney v. Florida Transformer, Inc., 549 So.2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) ("[W]here the line separating simple and gross negligence is doubtful or indistinct, the question of whether the negligence is ordinary or gross is one which should be submitted to the jury."); Laderman v. Mester, 510 So.2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

MARQUEZ v. HEIM CORP

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 4, 1994
632 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

reversing summary judgment because plaintiff's expert testified that using the machine without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator

Summary of this case from Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A.

reversing summary judgment because the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant was responsible for the machine's maintenance and knew that other employees had been injured due to the lack of a guard on the machine

Summary of this case from Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A.
Case details for

MARQUEZ v. HEIM CORP

Case Details

Full title:PEDRO MARQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DORIS MARQUEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 4, 1994

Citations

632 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A.

This is not helpful in distinguishing between negligence and gross negligence. See, e.g., Marquez v. Heim…

Villalta v. Cornn Int'l, Inc.

Summary judgment was thus improper because it should be entered only when there is no genuine issue, with…