Marquez v. Heim Corp.
Pedro MARQUEZ, individually, and Doris Marquez, his wife v. HEIM CORPORATION and Winfield L. Kelly
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
While operating a press brake machine at Warren Manufacturing, Pedro Marquez severed his index finger. 1 The press brake involved lacked point-of-operation guards. Marquez filed an action against Winfield Kelly, the president of the company, alleging willful or wanton conduct or gross negligence. Marquez presented evidence that Kelly was responsible for the safety of the work area but failed to install safety devices despite his knowledge of prior press brake injuries to other employees. He presented expert testimony that the regular use of a brake press without a guard created a clear *86 and present danger to the operator. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant. We reverse.
A summary judgment cannot stand where genuine issues, of material fact exist. Sun Chevrolet v. Crespo, 613 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this case the evidence is conflicting with regal'd to whether Kelly knew about the safety problems and whether his conduct amounted to gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for Marquez’s safety. Summary judgment is therefore precluded. See, e.g., Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Sys. Inc., 601 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Courtney v. Florida Transformer, Inc., 549 So.2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“[Wjhere the line separating simple and gross negligence is doubtful or indistinct, the question of whether the negligence is ordinary or gross is one which should be submitted to the jury.”); Laderman v. Mester, 510 So.2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded.
. The incident occurred Oct. 13, 1986.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(reversing summary judgment because plaintiff’s expert testified that using the machine without a guard created a clear and present danger to the operator)
-
(reversing final summary judgment because issues of causation, liability, and fraud remained)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.