Le v. Lighthouse Associates, Inc.
57 So. 3d 283
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege their minor son was exposed to unsanitary conditions while swimming in a pool maintained by Lighthouse Associates.
- Plaintiffs claim the pool-related exposure caused personal injuries to the minor.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs produced no credible evidence of causation.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert affidavits (toxicologist, infectious disease physician) opposing the motion; the toxicologist affidavit was struck as improper.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment, concluding plaintiffs failed to prove a causal link and relied on stacking inferences.
- Appellants appeal de novo, arguing the court misstated the burden of proof and improperly restricted opposing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden on movant at summary judgment | Lindsey: movant must prove no genuine issue exists. | Defendant asserts plaintiffs cannot prove causation; movant bears burden to show no triable issue. | Burden misapplied; movant must show no material issues remain. |
| Causation evidence in opposition to summary judgment | Affidavits show causal link between pool water and injury. | Affidavits are flawed or non-culpatory and may be struck. | Opposing affidavits can preclude summary judgment if admissible and raise triable issues. |
| Impact of City of Tamarac v. Varellan on summary judgment | Tamarac supports causal-inference evidence at summary judgment. | Tamarac is distinguishable; still supports movant burden. | Tamarac distinguished; standard aligns with Lindsey and Visingardi. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Florida Atlantic Univ. Bd. of Trs., 50 So.3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (burden on movant to show no material issues remain; not to prove plaintiff's case)
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1966) (summary judgment burden on movant; affidavits in opposition may preclude summary judgment)
- City of Tamarac v. Varellan, 463 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (factually on point but procedurally distinguishable; involved worker's comp and not summary judgment)
- Brundage v. Bank of Am., 996 So.2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (directed verdict standard possible after trial; not proper on summary judgment)