03-1146 ARDITI V. GROVE ISLE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Third District Court of Appeal » 2004 » 03-1146 ARDITI V. GROVE ISLE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d03-1146

Case Date: 12/29/2004

Plaintiff: 03-1146 ARDITI

Defendant: GROVE ISLE

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 ** ** Appellants, v. GROVE ISLE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees. ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-28197 CASE NO. 3D03-1146

IRENE ARDITI, et al.,

Opinion filed December 29, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jon I. Gordon, Judge. Kutner, Rubinoff, Bush & Lerner, and Andrew M. Moss; and Hicks & Kneale, and Dinah S. Stein, .and Brett C. Powell, for appellants. Josephs, Jack & Miranda, and Hugh J. Connolly; and Gordon Hargrove & James, and Carol A. Gart, and W. Kent Brown, for appellees. Before SHEVIN, RAMIREZ, and WELLS, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. Irene Arditi appeals the entry of an adverse final summary judgment in which the trial court found that Florida's impact

rule barred her claim against appellees Grove Isle Association and Thyssen Elevator Company when she became trapped inside of a malfunctioned elevator and suffered a heart attack immediately after jumping from the elevator to the floor. Because we find

that there are genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude the entry of summary judgment in favor of Grove Isle and Thyssen as the defendants and the moving parties, we

reverse. The incident at issue occurred when Arditi entered the

elevator of her apartment building and the elevator suddenly stopped. She remained in the elevator alone for approximately Miami-

twenty minutes before Miami-Dade Fire Rescue arrived.

Dade Fire Rescue opened the elevator doors approximately twenty five minutes later. Rescue personnel asked Arditi to jump out

of the elevator onto the lobby floor located two-and-a-half feet below the elevator. that she could not When she jumped, she immediately realized stand in up and became and She dizzy. one was of She her also feet. by

experienced Oppression

numbness in her

her

fingers

chest

followed.

transported

ambulance to a nearby hospital where a doctor informed her that she was having a heart attack. Arditi underwent coronary surgery. Dr. Ildefonso J. Mas,

the cardiologist who performed the surgery, reported that Arditi had no past medical history or medical problems. At fifty-two

2

years of age, Arditi was a very active person who exercised regularly "coronary events, acute and was very fit. He most the further probably elevator an reported secondary incident that to from her the an

dissection

[was]

which

occurred

during

frightful

incident

causing

extreme

catecholamine

release." We cannot agree that Grove Isle and Thyssen are entitled to the entry of summary judgment in their favor. We must view the

facts in the light most favorable to Arditi because she is the plaintiff below against whom the trial court entered summary judgment. Instead, the trial court seems to have construed the

facts in a light most favorable to Grove Isle and Thyssen as the defendants and moving parties. Summary conditions judgment should not be there entered must be unless no two

are

satisfied.

First,

genuine

issues of material fact, and second, the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nobles v. City of If the

Jacksonville, 265 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

record reflects the possibility of a material issue of fact, or if different inferences can be reasonably drawn from the facts, any doubts must be resolved against the moving party.

Collections, USA, Inc. v. City of Homestead, 816 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). See also Floyd v. Department of

Children & Families, 855 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

3

We conclude that the trial court did not comply with the first of these two conditions. In its final summary judgment, the court determined that Arditi's cardiologist attributed her heart attack to a chemical reaction resulting from her anxiety and fear of being stuck in the elevator. The cardiologist report, however, does not state

that her heart attack was caused by her fear of being stuck in the elevator. A fair reading of the cardiologist's report raises a

question of material fact as to the cause of Arditi's injuries. The report does not unequivocally state the cause of Artiti's heart attack.1 We are left to speculate as to: (1) whether

Arditi's fear of having been trapped in an elevator caused her heart attack; (2) whether her jump onto the lobby floor caused her heart attack; or (3) whether it was a combination of the two, the fear together with the impact of the jump. We agree

with Grove Isle and Thyssen that if it was only the fear that caused her heart attack, the impact rule would preclude

recovery.

See Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)

(holding that in the absence of impact, no recovery could be had by plaintiff who suffered a heart attack from the emotional stress induced by negligent conduct where the defendant's

automobile struck plaintiff's house). However, if it was the
1

The record does not contain any deposition of Dr. Mas which could have clarified his opinion.

4

jump the elevator to the floor, or a combination of the fear and the jump, the impact rule is satisfied. Thus, the trial court should have allowed the case to

proceed to trial and the evidence submitted to a jury under proper instructions for their determination of the factual

issues raised.

We therefore reverse and remand with directions

for further proceedings consistent with this view. Reversed and remanded.

5

Download 3d03-1146.pdf