Title: Stephens v. Dichtenmueller
Citation: 216 So. 2d 448
Docket Number: 37396
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 10, 1968

216 So. 2d 448 (1968)
Valerie V. STEPHENS, Petitioner,
v.
Hugo DICHTENMUELLER, Individually and D/B/a Fort Lauderdale Grocery Co., and Major C. Washington, Respondents.
No. 37396.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 10, 1968.
*449 Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown &amp; Dell, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Burl F. George, of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole &amp; Selwood, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review on writ of certiorari the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 207 So. 2d 718.
We will not restate the factual situation in the case nor the issues therein since they are fully delineated in the District Court opinion.
It is our opinion that the trial court, with the District Court affirming, failed to apply the rationale of Holl v. Talcott (Fla.), 191 So. 2d 40, in refusing to permit amendment or supplementation of the affidavit submitted by plaintiff (Petitioner) in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The District Court expresses the view that
In Holl v. Tolcott, supra, we said:
Similarly, we note that the District Court in this case, without knowing for certain, speculated that the trial court rejected the affidavit filed on Petitioner's behalf for two assumed deficiencies. And, similarly, it appears that had the Petitioner's oral motion been granted her expert might have been able to correct the deficiencies in his affidavit and Petitioner would not have had her cause dismissed without trial. The deficiencies in the affidavit, pointed out by the District Court, of failure to show affirmatively that affiant was competent to express the opinion contained therein and the vagueness of the affidavit, were largely technical and may have been amenable to correction similarly as was the affidavit in Holl v. Talcott.
It appears to us the Petitioner under these circumstances, measured by the rationale of Holl v. Talcott, supra, should have been afforded, pursuant to her oral motion, at least one opportunity to amend or supplement the affidavit. Liberal treatment is the rule  and should not be the exception  under these circumstances, particularly where the petitioner is not given the benefit of the reasons for the rejection of the affidavit in the trial court's order and an appeal thereon could not be predicated with certainty nor any opportunity to correct deficiencies in the affidavit.
The very nature of the factual situation; viz., absence of eyewitnesses to the accident and the death of Petitioner's husband the rider of the motorcycle, in the accident, gave rise to conditions where competent expert testimony based on the circumstances might have been relevant evidence at trial. Great caution should be exercised in any summary judgment proceedings not to deny a litigant ample opportunity to demonstrate that he is entitled to the benefit of a trial.
The judgment of the District Court is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, ERVIN and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
DREW, J., concurs specially with Opinion.
CALDWELL, C.J., and THOMAS, J., dissent.
DREW, Justice (concurring specially):
I agree that the decision of the District Court in this case conflicts with Holl v. Talcott cited in the per curiam opinion and that the decision of the District Court should be quashed and the cause sent back for further proceedings. Having determined that we have jurisdiction, however, I think there is a far more basic reason for reversing this case. This reasoning is *451 summarized in the following excerpt from my dissent nearly fourteen years ago in Rivaux v. Florida Power &amp; Light Company, Fla. 1955, 78 So.2d 714:
For the reasons expressed in my dissent aforesaid, as well as those stated in the per curiam opinion, I concur in the opinion and judgment.
ROBERTS, ERVIN and HOPPING, JJ., concur.