Case ID: so2d_667/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beverly WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. FORT PIERCE TRIBUNE AND CLAIMS CENTER, Respondent.
    No. 82409.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Sept. 7, 1995.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1996.
    Jerold Feuer, Miami, Vincent A. Lloyd of Lloyd, Hoskins & Pierce, P.A., Fort Pierce, and Stephen Marc Slepin, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
    Arthur J. England, Jr. and Elliot H. Seherker of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., Miami, and Paul L. Westcott of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett & Hurt, P.A, Vero Beach, for respondents.
    Scott Mager of the Law Offices of Scott Mager, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, amicus curiae, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
    Jack A. Kirschenbaum and G. Robertson Dilg of Gray, Harris, Robinson, Kirschen-baum & Peeples, P.A., Cocoa Beach, amicus curiae, for Cape Publications, Inc. d/b/a Florida Today, News-Press Publishing Co., Inc. d/b/a News-Press, and Pensacola-News Journal, Inc. d/b/a Pensacola-News Journal.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review a district court decision certifying the following questions to be of great public importance:

WHETHER,' IN LIGHT OF THE EVOLVING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS AND PERSONS DELIVERING NEWSPAPERS, THE HOLDING IN MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. v. KENDALL, 88 So.2d 276 (Fla.1956), REMAINS VIABLE?
IF THE DECISION IN MIAMI HERALD REMAINS VIABLE, IS ITS APPLICATION LIMITED TO TORT ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES, OR DOES IT EXTEND AS WELL TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASES?

Fort Pierce Tribune v. Williams, 622 So.2d 1368, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered both certified questions in the affirmative in the case of Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d 167 (Fla.1995), opinion issued simultaneously herewith. Based upon our decision in Keith, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our holding in Keith.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

GRIMES, C.J., dissents.