The Business Law Section of the Florida Bar has waded into a lawsuit over a deadly truck accident before the Florida Supreme Court, filing an amicus curiae brief urging justices to adopt the federal Celotex standard for summary judgments in all civil claims.

The standard stems from a collection of opinions the U.S. Supreme Court issued in 1986, which made it easier to obtain summary judgments in federal court. It holds that issues can only progress to trial if there's enough evidence for jurors to reasonably find for the nonmovant.

Most states have adopted the rule, but not Florida.

"This would put Florida in line with the majority of the states in the country, and federal courts in the country," said Joseph Van de Bogart of Van de Bogart Law in Fort Lauderdale, who represents the Business Law Section with Manuel Farach of McGlinchey Stafford in Fort Lauderdale.

Florida's rule, Holl v. Talcott, resembles Celotex but houses conflicting approaches to summary judgments, thanks to case law. It holds a judge can't grant a summary judgment unless all doubt and issues of fact raised by the opposing party have been cleared up or disproved, while the opposing party doesn't have to produce corresponding evidence until later.

It's a "backwards process," according to the brief, which supports neither party. Instead it claims the current standard slows down business disagreements by clogging the system with trials based on superfluous and unsustainable claims.

The brief claims courts have ended up affirming direct verdicts on the same issues they denied summary judgments, as happened with Sylvester v. Delray Beach.

While critics of implementing the Celotex standard might argue that all cases should be tried, Farach and Van de Bogart say they'd rather see all cases with merit be tried.

"We don't have a dog in the fight. We don't care if plaintiffs win or defendants win, because we do both," Farach said. "We want a fair standard that allows our clients to put their case forward when they have a case. And if there isn't a case, then somebody shouldn't be able to artificially keep it in litigation when there's no reason to do that."

The case has had a magnetic effect thus far, attracting briefs from a chorus of voices advocating for the change, including the Florida Healthcare Association, the Product Liability Advisory Council Inc., the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Florida Defense Lawyers Association.

|

What happened?

The underlying lawsuit from the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Wilsonart v. Lopez, raises questions about alleged inconsistencies between eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

The plaintiff represents Jon Lopez, who died after his pickup truck crashed into the back of a freight liner, causing it to collide with the car in front. Defendant Samuel Rosario was driving the freight liner for manufacturing company Wilsonart. They obtained a summary judgment based on testimony and video evidence that purportedly demonstrated Lopez was the sole legal cause of the crash.

But the appeals court reversed, pointing to conflicting evidence over whether Rosario negligently drove his freight liner truck, meaning jurors might apportion fault between the drivers.

Plaintiffs attorney Tony Bennett of Hicks & Motto in Palm Beach Gardens and Bryan Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy in Jacksonville declined to comment, while defense attorneys Sean McDonough and Jacqueline Bertelsen of Wilson Elser in Orlando did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

The plaintiff has until Feb. 18 to file its answer brief.

|

Read the amicus brief:

|

Read more: