Trial court erred by entering an order enforcing a settlement agreement involving children injured in an automobile accident because the agreement was invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of chapter 744 requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Allen v. Montalvan, 41, Fla. L. Weekly D1469 (Fla. 4th DCA June 22, 2016). 2016 WL 3419303
In automobile accident case, trial court erred by entering a final judgment directing verdict on basis there was no permanent injury because there was expert testimony from Plaintiff’s treating physician and a consulting neurologist that he had sustained a permanent injury. James v. City of Tampa, 193 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA June 10, 2016).
Trial court properly dismissed claim filed per Florida’s “anti-dumping” statute, section 395.1041, Florida Statutes, because the term “may” in that statute “does not create a statutory duty to transfer patients.” Morejon v. Mariners Hospital, Inc., 197 So.3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA June 8, 2016).
In slip and fall case, trial court erred by summarily dismissing case on basis plaintiff failed to present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition created when the tile at the entrance got wet because there were deposition of three witnesses, including an employee” that tended to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership, 193 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA June 8, 2016).
In resolving a conflict between the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Bank of America Corp. v. Valladares, 141 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 2014) and the decisions in Pokorny v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n. of Largo, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 1980) and Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the Florida Supreme Court expressly held that “a cause of action is available to one injured as a result of a false report of criminal behavior to law enforcement when the report is made by a party which has knowledge or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge that the accusation are false or acts in a gross or flagrant manner in reckless disregard of the rights of the party exposed, or acts with indifference or wantonness or recklessness equivalent to punitive conduct.” Valladares v. Bank of America Corp., 197 So.3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA June 2, 2016).
Trial court properly dismissed father’s complaint alleging battery and intentional interference with parent-child relationship against a surgeon because the operation was conducted after the wife had granted consent even though it was alleged the surgeon knew or should have known the father objected. Angeli v. Evelyn A. Kluka, M.D., 190 So.3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 2016).