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.
Schwartz v. Hughes Supply, Inc.
Citations: 537 So. 2d 190; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 251; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 220; 1989 WL 3283Docket: No. 88-626
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 17, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
Bernard Schwartz and his wife challenge a final summary judgment favoring appellees, which held that Schwartz's actions while responding to an accident were unreasonable. On February 3, 1983, Officer Schwartz was dispatched to a scene involving a Pontiac and a truck owned by Hughes Supply and operated by Solen Herman Hingson, Jr. A tow truck, owned by James Rehak and operated by Joseph Senese, was called to remove the vehicles. As the tow truck began to roll toward Schwartz, who was attending to injured individuals, he braced himself against it to prevent further danger. Schwartz alleged negligence by Hingson for the initial accident and by Senese for not securing the tow truck with an emergency brake, leading to the rolling incident. Hingson and Senese argued they acted under police orders. After extensive pretrial motions, the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding Schwartz's actions unreasonable and not protected by the rescue doctrine. The appellants contended that the trial judge erred in this determination and that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly regarding the reasonableness of Schwartz's actions and the circumstances surrounding requests to move the vehicles. The court emphasized that summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, especially in cases involving comparative negligence. The appellate court found disputed factual issues regarding the circumstances of the accident and the actions of the parties, determining that it was inappropriate for the trial court to conclude Schwartz's actions were unreasonable as a matter of law. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, acknowledging that an officer can have a cause of action under the rescue doctrine if they act reasonably in response to imminent danger.