William Joseph SORRELLS, As Father and Next Friend of Lynda Sorrells, a Minor, and William Joseph Sorrells, Individually, Appellants,
v.
Lucille MULLINS, D/B/a Cathy's Play School, and Lucille Mullins, Individually, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and John M. Brumbaugh, Miami, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
NATHAN, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal an adverse summary final judgment entered in an action for negligence and gross negligence.
The amended complaint alleges, in essence, that defendant was grossly negligent, as well as negligent, in allowing one Smith to help with the children at defendant's play school where plaintiffs were paying for care and schooling. The thrust of plaintiffs' complaint was that defendant was guilty of such negligence in that she knew, or had reason to know, that Smith had a propensity for sexually molesting minor children and for sodomy.
Viewing the evidence adduced by affidavits and deposition in the light most favorable *386 to the plaintiffs, defendant allowed Smith, her step-brother, to live, rent free, above the play school. He performed odd jobs around the school, and defendant had him pick up plaintiff's child and deliver her to and from school. Defendant admitted that on one occasion she found Smith in her home, alone with the said child. Defendant further testified that she was aware of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Minimum Standards for Child Care Programs,[1] but that she failed to make inquiry as to Smith qualifications thereunder. There was also evidence that Smith had spanked the children in the presence of the defendant.
We find that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the negligence of the defendant. While the record does not support allegations in the pleadings that the defendant had actual knowledge of Smith's sexual propensities, nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence in the record to substantiate an action for negligence, and for this reason the court should not have entered summary final judgment.
In Gold Coast Crane Service, Inc. v. Watier, Fla. 1971,
The evidence in the record sub judice indicates that plaintiff does have a cause of action even though it may be misstated or not pleaded at all. Compare Bernard Marko & Associates, Inc. v. Steele, Fla.App. 1970,
Following the procedure defined in Roberts v. Braynon, Fla. 1956,
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
NOTES
Notes
[1] "PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS:
The personnel of a child care program shall be qualified through training and experience ...
Persons caring for infants should be qualified by training or practical experience in the care of infants and young children. They must be neat and clean in personal appearance, cheerful, friendly and well disposed toward children.
The operator and all personnel of a child care program or family day care home and all members of the operator's family or other persons living on the premises must be of good character and must have no personal habits or handicapping infirmities which will have a detrimental influence on the children in care. (Emphasis added)
RESPONSIBILITIES:
At all times, one responsible adult must be designated in writing as being "in charge." The adult regularly and directly in charge of a child care program must not be otherwise engaged during program hours. Children must not be left without responsible adult supervision at any time." (Emphasis added)
[2] "Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190, 30 F.S.A. provides for amendments `at any time in furtherance of justice,' and `even after judgment.' It is the policy of our rules that amendments to pleadings be liberally allowed in the interest of justice so that the merits of the case may be reached for adjudication whenever possible. ... (emphasis added)
In Roberts v. Braynon,
The interests of justice require this cause to be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of allowing respondent to attempt a successful amendment of her complaint, under the record facts indicating such reasonable possibility here.
Amendment is not an arbitrary right in every case upon the granting of a summary judgment, if there are no reasonable indications in the record that a justifiable issue can be made upon amendment to conform to those facts so appearing at the time of the entry of the summary judgment; but where so indicated, as here, the litigant is entitled to that opportunity, as this Court has held." Gold Coast Crane Service, Inc. v. Watier, Fla. 1971,
