Florida Supreme Court rules on highly anticipated trucker dashcam case

January 14, 2021

Tyson Fisher

|

Trucking company Wilsonart lost its summary judgment bid in the Florida Supreme Court in a case centered on dashcam evidence. However, not all is lost to have the case dismissed.

On Dec. 31, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a state appeals court’s decision denying Temple, Texas-based Wilsonart summary judgment by answering “no” to a certified question. That question asks the high court whether or not the state’s summary judgment rules should be changed to allow a case to be dismissed when “video evidence completely negates or refutes any conflicting evidence presented by the nonmoving party in opposition to the summary judgment motion and there is no evidence or suggestion that the videotape evidence has been altered or doctored.”

In Wilsonart’s case, its attorneys suggest that dashcam video completely negates eyewitness claims that allege one of its drivers, Samuel Rosario, was responsible for a fatal crash. A trial court granted summary judgment based on the evidence. The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed that order, stating that Florida’s rules do not allow video evidence as a basis for summary judgment. Essentially, video evidence alone does not eliminate the slightest of doubt.

However, the court of appeals agreed that Wilsonart’s dashcam footage was compelling, prompting the court to submit a certified question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether or not it should amend summary judgment rules to allow such evidence. That question garnered a lot of attention from stakeholders, including many legal and business associations.

Nearly every amicus brief filed asks the state Supreme Court to adopt a federal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court commonly known as the Celotex Trilogy.

Essentially, Florida rules only required a “the slightest doubt that material issues could be present.” For Wilsonart, despite clear video evidence, any eyewitness’ conflicting account can derail a summary judgment motion in Florida. Unlike Florida law, the Celotex Trilogy standard lowers the bar by not requiring the movant to negate opposing claims. Rather, they only need to show “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”

Applying that standard to Wilsonart’s case, a dashcam video clearly contradicting an eyewitness account shows no “genuine” issue. Every amicus brief filed in the Wilsonart case wants Florida to move to that standard, as 41 other states have.

However, there were a few dissenters. The American Board of Trial Advocates and a group of retired Florida state court justices argued that any rule changes should go through the rules committee process. Neither necessarily oppose the amendment. Rather, they oppose the method by which those changes would be made.

In its Dec. 31 order, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the few opposed to the court making the change. On the same day, the high court also signed off on an amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, which deals with summary judgment standards. In its amendment, the Supreme Court adopted standards consistent with the Celotex Trilogy as a supermajority of states already have. That new standard goes into effect on May 1.

The high court did not grant Wilsonart’s attempt to overturn the appellate court’s reversal of summary judgment.

However, the Florida Supreme Court did let Wilsonart know that it can file another motion for summary judgment under the new standards once they go into effect in May. Attorneys for Wilsonart say they will be doing just that.

With new standards, use of video evidence such as dashcams is more likely to result in summary judgment in Florida. In Wilsonart’s case, that dashcam may absolve Rosario of any blame for a fatal crash. Wilsonart did not require dashcams. Instead, Rosario installed his own, which may prove to be a worthy investment. LL

Related stories: