Case Name: Thomas GIALLANZA, father and personal representative of the Estate of Bernadette Giallanza, Deceased, Appellant, v. Louis L. SANDS et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-07-03
Citations: 316 So. 2d 77
Docket Number: No. 73-1134
Parties: Thomas GIALLANZA, father and personal representative of the Estate of Bernadette Giallanza, Deceased, Appellant, v. Louis L. SANDS et al., Appellees.
Judges: CROSS and MAGER, JJT., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 316
Pages: 77–85

Head Matter:
Thomas GIALLANZA, father and personal representative of the Estate of Bernadette Giallanza, Deceased, Appellant, v. Louis L. SANDS et al., Appellees.
No. 73-1134.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 3, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 13, 1975.
Thomas E. Hunt, of Mueller & Hunt, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Mark Hicks, of Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, Miami, for appellee-Vincent J. Strack, M.D.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration and review of the record on appeal and the briefs herein we are of the opinion that genuine issues of material fact exist so as to preclude a summary disposition. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Nance v. Ball, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 35; Lab v. Hall, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 556. A summary judgment should be cautiously granted in. negligence cases and in malpractice suits such as the instant case where genuinely triable issues of fact exist with respect to such matters as whether the appel-lee Strack was negligent in accepting decedent as a drug abuse patient without actually seeing her; whether the appellee Strack did in fact accept decedent as a patient and assumed the duty to treat; whether the failure to properly diagnose the case was the proximate cause of the death of decedent. The nature of the factual issues as presented precluded a determination at a summary proceeding and necessitated a full exploration by a trial. Lab v. Hall, supra; see also Levy v. Kirk, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 401.
The sole and only appellate issue presented is whether there exists genuinely triable issues of fact so as to preclude a summary disposition permitting a litigant to have his day in court. The legal issue presented in this appeal is governed by applicable principles of law pertaining to summary judgments; the malpractice insurance controversy, the legislative considerations thereof and newepaper articles thereon are in nowise legally germane to that issue.
The liability of appellee Strack and his conduct under the circumstances are the very factual issues that necessitate resolution at a hearing on the merits. Cf. Sec. 768.13, F.S. As aptly observed, in 30 Fla. Jur., Summary Judgment, sec. 10:
". . . Public policy requires that the courts be ever vigilant in making summary disposition of causes, lest the application of the rule result in destruction of the right of litigants to have the issues made by the pleadings tried by a jury of fellow citizens. . . ."
Therefore, as between a recognition of a litigant's constitutional right to a hearing on genuinely triable issues and a defendant's inconvenience until the issue of liability is resolved the court is constrained to follow- the precedent of a jury determination. See Forrest v. Carter, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 141.
Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CROSS and MAGER, JJT., concur.
WALDEN, C. J., dissénts, with opinion.