Case Name: Sara DOUGLAS and Judith Douglas, Appellants, v. Arneda EIRIKSSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-06-30
Citations: 347 So. 2d 1074
Docket Number: No. CC-409
Parties: Sara DOUGLAS and Judith Douglas, Appellants, v. Arneda EIRIKSSON, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 1074–1076

Head Matter:
Sara DOUGLAS and Judith Douglas, Appellants, v. Arneda EIRIKSSON, Appellee.
No. CC-409.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 30, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1977.
Robert P. Gaines of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellants.
J. LaDon Dewrell of Dewrell & Kessler, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
BOYER, Chief Judge.
The issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the Doug-lases' motion to dismiss Mrs. Eiriksson's case for lack of prosecution. The motion was based on Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) which provides:
"All actions in which it affirmatively appears that no action has been taken by filing of pleadings, order of court or otherwise for a period of one year shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of any interested person, whether a party to the action or not, after reasonable notice to the parties, unless a party shows good cause in writing why the action should remain pending at least five days before the hearing on the motion."
Mrs. Eiriksson filed her complaint on September 26, 1973, alleging that she was injured in an automobile accident that occurred some three years earlier. The Doug-lases filed their answer, various depositions were taken, and Mrs. Eiriksson filed her answer to an interrogatory asking for a list of expenses. Over one year later, the Douglases filed their motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution which the trial court denied after a hearing. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and final judgment in favor of Mrs. Eiriksson.
A ruling on a motion for order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is subject to attack only on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Company, 317 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Just as there is a strong presumption of correctness in favor of an order of a trial court relative to a motion to set aside a default (Brown v. Vasiliades, 344 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)) there is a similar presumption of correctness applicable to the granting or denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Company, supra. Sub judice, the Douglases have not overcome the presumption of correctness in favor of the action of the trial judge. Physical disability has been found to justify a failure to bring a case to trial, whether the disability occurs to the plaintiff (Chrysler Leasing Corp. v. Passacantilli, 259 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972)) or to plaintiffs attorney. (Eli Einbinder, Inc. v. Miami Crystal Ice Company, supra.)
We have considered the points raised by Mrs. Eiriksson in her cross-assignments of error and have found them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the final judgment is
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.