04-0242 ENTERPRISE V. SOSA

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2005 » 04-0242 ENTERPRISE V. SOSA

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 04-0242 ENTERPRISE V. SOSA

Case Date: 07/20/2005

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. 2005 ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, Appellant, vs. RENE SOSA, etc., et al., Appellees. ** ** ** ** ** ** Opinion filed July 20, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge. Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco, Dimatteo, and Joel Lumer; and Adams & Adams, and Brian Davis, for appellant. Ginsberg appellees. and Schwartz, and Arnold R. Ginsberg, V. for CASE NO. 3D04-242 CONSOLIDATED: 3D03-2296 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO.

00-33235

Before GREEN and RAMIREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. RAMIREZ, J. Enterprise Leasing Company appeals the trial court's

$227,000.00 amended final judgment entered against Enterprise.

Enterprise also appeals the trial court's $6,000.00 final cost judgment entered against it. Rene Marco Sosa, as personal the We affirm both final judgments. representative filed out of an of the estate of

Antonio for

Roman,

deceased,

action an

against

Enterprise

wrongful

death

arising

automobile Sosa

accident occurring in Lakeland, Florida in August of 2000.

sought recovery on behalf of the minor children of the deceased and on behalf of the mother of one of the children, who was married to the deceased when he died. The parties stipulated that Enterprise owned a Dodge pickup truck and that Juan Correa was operating the truck with

Enterprise's permission on Florida State Road 471 on the date in question. Roman was a passenger in the truck. I. DIRECTED VERDICT

Enterprise first contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for Enterprise on the issue of

liability.

We disagree.

Motions for directed verdict should be

cautiously affirmed only when it can be said that after viewing the evidence and testimony in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact or material inference and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See

Carrousel Intern. Corp. v. Auction Co. of America, Inc., 674 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Furthermore, in testing the motion,

2

the movant must admit to all of the facts in the evidence and must further admit to every reasonable inference favorable to the non-moving party. See Tiny's Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In the instant case, the facts presented, with all

inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff, allow for a finding of negligence. The testimony indicates that on the day of the accident, it was raining. Enterprise's vehicle began to

fishtail, and the driver did not have the vehicle under control. The vehicle crossed the center Roman's line and collided These in with an

oncoming facts,

vehicle, with

causing all the

death. drawn

established of the

along

inferences

favor

plaintiff, the party moved against, are sufficient for a finding of negligence. In addition, even without the testimony of an eyewitness to an event, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding as to a particular fact. Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531, See Majeske v. Palm Beach (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).

533

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Enterprise's motion for directed verdict on liability and in allowing the issue of negligence to go to the jury. II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR NET ACUMULATIONS, SERVICES, AND SUPPORT

3

Turning to Enterprise's second point on appeal, that the trial court erred in refusing to strike plaintiff's claim for net accumulations, services and support, we also disagree. case involves Florida's Wrongful Death Statute. Florida Statutes (2000), lists who may This

Section 768.18, for wrongful

recover

death actions in Florida, as well as what they can recover. Under the Wrongful Death Statute, there is no limitation on, or exclusion of, a decedent, his estate or survivors based on the legal status of the decedent or the beneficiaries. Death Act, Sections 768.16-768.26, Florida The Wrongful (2000),

Statutes

contains detailed provisions, including definitions and detailed stipulations for the recovery of damages. To engraft an

exception for illegal immigrants would be to encroach on the legislature's turf. A court must interpret and construe a statute according to the precise language adopted by the legislature. See Florida

Gulf Health Sys. Agency, Inc. v. Comm'n on Ethics, 354 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In a state like Florida where such a

large portion of our population is foreign-born, we can only assume that the legislature saw no need to deprive the survivors of the decedent from the benefits of the Act, particularly given its legislative intent: "to shift the losses resulting when

wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer."

Download 04-0242 ENTERPRISE V. SOSA.pdf