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.
Sumner & Foster Enterprises, Inc. v. EZ TV Rentals, Inc.
Citations: 483 So. 2d 843; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 520; 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6694Docket: No. BE-276
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 26, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
Sumner and Foster Enterprises, Inc. (S.F.) appealed a summary judgment in favor of EZ T.V. Rental, Inc. (EZ), arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment. S.F. initiated legal action against EZ and employees Scott Burkhart and Steven Lewis after they removed an EZ-owned refrigerator from a property owned by S.F. The amended complaint included three counts: Count I alleged trespass against EZ, Burkhart, and Lewis; Count II claimed that Burkhart and Lewis acted at EZ's direction; and Count III asserted negligent hiring, training, and supervision by EZ. The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when there are genuine issues of material fact, citing Rule 1.510(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The record for the summary judgment included depositions from Burkhart and EZ's manager, revealing inconsistencies about Burkhart's actions and EZ's policies concerning perceived theft. Burkhart indicated he acted outside his employment boundaries, and the manager's deposition left ambiguous whether Burkhart was terminated or left voluntarily after the incident. Additionally, S.F.'s answers to interrogatories suggested that EZ's manager acknowledged sending employees to forcibly retrieve the refrigerator, creating further factual disputes. The court noted that these disputes warranted reversal of the summary judgment for EZ but affirmed that the partial summary judgment concerning punitive damages for Burkhart was non-final and non-appealable, thus remaining unchanged. The ruling concluded with a reversal and remand of the summary judgment in favor of EZ. Judges Shivers and Nimmons concurred with the decision.