Lexplug logoLexplug

JYQUIS THOMAS v. TRENCH TRAINING SYSTEMS, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida
Not yet reported in So. 3d (2023)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may plead inconsistent facts and alternative theories of liability within a single complaint or count, and such inconsistencies do not constitute grounds for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.


Facts:

  • Jyquis Thomas, a football player preparing for the 2019 NFL draft, entered into an agreement with Trench Training Systems (Trench) to receive athletic training services.
  • Thomas attended the training facility as a business invitee and received a receipt for the services.
  • Trench had installed synthetic turf at the facility for use during training exercises.
  • A Trench employee instructed Thomas to perform training drills on the synthetic turf.
  • While Thomas was training, the turf shifted under his feet.
  • The shifting turf caused Thomas to rupture his Achilles tendon, resulting in serious bodily injury.
  • The turf allegedly had holes, was not properly fixed to the floor, and constituted a dangerous condition that Trench knew or should have known about.

Procedural Posture:

  • Thomas filed a negligence complaint against Trench in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.
  • Thomas filed an amended complaint adding four new defendants.
  • The trial court granted a motion to dismiss by two of the new defendants based on personal jurisdiction and commingling of theories.
  • Thomas filed a second amended complaint.
  • The trial court granted Trench's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend.
  • Thomas filed a third amended complaint (the operative pleading).
  • Trench moved to dismiss the third amended complaint, arguing sparse allegations and contradictory theories.
  • The trial court granted Trench's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a negligence complaint fail to state a cause of action when it combines alternative theories of liability within a single count and includes factual allegations that contradict claims made against other defendants in the same lawsuit?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Khouzam

No, a complaint does not fail to state a cause of action simply because it relies on alternative or inconsistent pleading, even if those theories are combined in a single count. The court reasoned that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(g) expressly permits parties to state causes of action in the alternative, regardless of consistency. While the trial court dismissed the complaint for 'commingling' theories and alleging contradictory facts (such as who installed the turf), the appellate court held that inconsistencies in facts or legal theories are permissible. The court further distinguished this case from Goldschmidt v. Holman; unlike the plaintiff in Goldschmidt, Thomas specifically alleged facts supporting vicarious liability—such as the employee acting within the scope of employment—rather than failing to plead the theory altogether. Since the complaint contained all necessary elements of negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) and sufficiently acquainted the defendant with the charges, the dismissal was improper.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the liberal pleading standards in Florida, emphasizing that the purpose of a complaint is to give notice of the claims rather than to enforce rigid technical perfection. By clarifying that alternative pleading allows for mutually exclusive allegations (e.g., alleging Defendant A installed the turf in one count, and Defendant B in another), the court ensures that plaintiffs are not forced to prematurely choose a single theory of liability before discovery reveals the full truth. The ruling also clarifies that while separating theories into different counts is 'better practice,' combining them into one count is not a fatal defect warranting dismissal with prejudice, provided the essential elements of the cause of action are present.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: JYQUIS THOMAS v. TRENCH TRAINING SYSTEMS, LLC (2023)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"