Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Socha v. Geist
Citations: 392 So. 2d 945; 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17920Docket: No. 79-266
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 23, 1980; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding a dismissal with prejudice of the appellants' contribution claim in a personal injury case. The original defendant, Bruno Socha, acted as his own contractor for a residence in Volusia County, Florida, hiring Melvin A. Geist, operating as Mel’s Bulldozing, for excavation work. Following premature backfilling of a basement, a wall collapsed, injuring Geist's three minor children while they were in the basement. Medical expenses for the injuries totaled nearly $11,000. Melvin A. Geist filed suit against the Sochas for negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and statutory violations. The Sochas countered with a third-party complaint against Geist and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, claiming coverage for the incident. A settlement of $75,000 was reached involving the Geist plaintiffs, the Sochas, and Nationwide, with the Sochas contributing $20,000 and Nationwide $55,000. The court approved the settlement, and releases were executed by Geist on behalf of his children. The Sochas then pursued a third-party claim against Geist, alleging negligence contributing to the injuries. An amended complaint included South Carolina Insurance Company as an insurer for Geist. A motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was granted, resulting in the dismissal being appealed. The court affirmed the dismissal regarding the claim for contribution related to Geist's individual settlement but reversed the dismissal regarding the claims for the Geist children's settlement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. Judge Orfinger concurred, while Chief Judge Dauksh concurred in part and dissented in part.