Negligence Suit Proceeds Against Coca-Cola Distributor in Miami After Truck Crashes Into House
The Third DCA reversed and remanded a summary judgment entered for a bottling company partnered with the soft drink giant. The plaintiff, Corinna Clarke, alleges she was displaced after a company truck crashed into her house, allegedly rendering it uninhabitable.
September 05, 2019 at 06:57 PM
4 minute read
Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc. will have to fight a negligence suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court after a Florida appellate panel's order negated a summary judgment entered for the company.
The Third DCA ruled in favor of Corinna Clarke in her litigation with the company Wednesday. Clarke had originally filed suit against Coca-Cola Refreshments — a bottler responsible for distributing the Coca-Cola Co.'s products — and Kenroy Buckle, a driver employed by the company, in December 2016.
According to Clarke's amended complaint, Buckle was driving a Coca-Cola Refreshments-owned 2007 Freightliner that collided with another vehicle and subsequently crashed into the plaintiff's Miami-Dade residence May 10, 2013. The incident allegedly took place while Buckle was on the job, and Clarke contended the crash displaced her, and rendered the property uninhabitable.
Clarke pursued legal action and damages against the distributor after a lawsuit filed by her relative, Angela Clarke-Morales, was voluntarily dismissed on the eve of trial. The company fought the suit and objected to the plaintiff's efforts to depose Buckle, arguing that he had already sat for two depositions and had complied with numerous discovery requests from the preceding lawsuit concerning the crash.
The trial court granted Coca-Cola Refreshment's motion for protective order regarding Buckle's deposition in February 2018 and later entered a summary judgment on behalf of the company May 21, 2018.
Read the appellate order:
Clarke appealed both the protective order and the summary judgment to the Third DCA. Although the appellate panel sympathized with "the practical efficiencies the trial court sought to advance," the opinion concluded the lower court "did not sufficiently consider and balance Clarke's due process right to full discovery."
"The trial court recognized a hardship on Mr. Buckle to sit for another deposition, only to be questioned by the same attorney who had deposed him twice already," the opinion said in reference to Clarke's legal counsel, Miami attorney Luis Frank Navarro.
Clarke's attorney, a Navarro McKown partner, also represented the plaintiff's family in the preceding lawsuit against Coca-Cola Refreshments.
"That a material witness has undergone extensive questioning in an earlier deposition in a related case is not a justification under the facts of this case to deny Clarke the opportunity to probe further," the opinion continued. "The mere existence of a deposition transcript from an earlier lawsuit involving similar issues does not necessarily preclude a new deposition of a material witness."
The Third DCA continued, "While we acknowledge both the hardship on Mr. Buckle to sit for another deposition and the trial court's goal of judicial efficiency, Clarke is entitled to a thorough preparation of her case, including her taking Mr. Buckle's deposition." The opinion declined to consider the merits of Clarke's appeal of the summary judgment, as the appellate court's "reversal of the protective order herein necessitates reversal of the summary judgment."
Navarro did not return requests for comment by press time. He is also representing another resident of the home, Junae Clarke-Morales, in a negligence suit against Coca-Cola Refreshments and Buckle. The May 2017 complaint in Junae Clarke-Morales' case claims the company is liable for permanent injuries she and her son suffered in the crash.
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial partner Kate Spinelli is listed as Coca-Cola Refreshment's legal counsel in court papers. She did not respond to press inquires by deadline.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250