Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc.

Citations: 632 So. 2d 1136; 1994 WL 68836Docket: 92-1681

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 8, 1994; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court case Lurine Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc. involves an appeal from a dismissal order issued by the trial court at the commencement of trial. The dismissal was based on the failure to state a cause of action and occurred without prior notice to the parties, during a hearing addressing the plaintiff’s motions in limine. The appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, questioning the trial court's authority to dismiss the case sua sponte at trial's start, as governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(h). This rule indicates that defenses like failure to state a cause of action must be raised through specific motions or pleadings unless jurisdictional issues are at stake. The appellate court emphasized that the trial court should rely on the plaintiff’s pleadings, not on unsworn statements by opposing counsel. It highlighted the necessity of due process, asserting that a dismissal at trial's outset, after considerable preparation by the plaintiff, could be viewed as unjust. The court noted the lack of Florida precedent supporting such a dismissal without procedural safeguards and drew comparisons to the federal rules, which similarly do not endorse sua sponte dismissals without clear procedural grounds.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) outlines the procedural requirements for asserting defenses in legal pleadings, particularly focusing on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defenses such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficiency of process can be raised by motion rather than in a responsive pleading, with specific exceptions noted. A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) must be made before serving a responsive pleading, but the defense can also be asserted at trial per Rule 12(h)(2). A post-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion is considered untimely, necessitating alternative motions like judgment on pleadings or summary judgment.

The court primarily evaluates the allegations in the complaint, but public records and exhibits may also be considered. Notably, if the court receives materials outside the pleadings without exclusion, it will treat the motion as one for summary judgment, granting all parties the opportunity to present relevant materials. Dismissals for failure to state a claim should follow "fair procedure," meaning the plaintiff must be notified and given a chance to respond. This principle aligns with rulings such as Jefferson Fourteenth Assoc. v. Wometco De Puerto Rico, emphasizing that dismissals lack merit if the plaintiff is not afforded proper notice.

The excerpt disapproves of a trial court's procedure that involved an unfiled, unnoticed motion for summary judgment, deeming it unfair to the plaintiff. Additionally, the second amended complaint identified a specific oral contract between the Defendant and South Florida State Hospital, detailing the Defendant's responsibilities for patient care and the requirement for Nurses Aides upon patient admission.

On June 7, 1986, Carolyn Grimmet, a patient with a history of violent behavior, was transferred from South Florida State Hospital to Pembroke Pines Hospital, accompanied by a Nurses Aide (the Plaintiff). On June 26, 1986, the Plaintiff informed hospital personnel that Grimmet was exhibiting violent behavior and requested assistance, which was denied. While attempting to calm the patient per hospital directives, Grimmet struck the Plaintiff, causing injuries. 

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant hospital had a common law duty to exercise reasonable care for her safety as an invitee, which included recognizing and mitigating hazardous conditions. This duty was further reinforced by an oral contractual agreement requiring nurses aides to accompany Grimmet. The Defendant is accused of negligence for allowing Grimmet's violent behavior to create an unsafe environment and for failing to take necessary precautions or provide adequate warnings about the risks.

The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim, citing precedents involving hazardous building sites, but the document argues these cases should not apply to the context of a hospital setting where the Plaintiff sought help. The court should recognize the Plaintiff's claim as actionable given the specific circumstances. The judges concurred with this perspective.