Pages v. Dominguez ex rel. Dominguez

District Court of Appeal of Florida
1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2251, 652 So. 2d 864 (1995)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A trial court possesses broad discretion regarding the consolidation of actions, and a refusal to consolidate separate lawsuits arising from the same accident does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law necessitating certiorari relief, particularly when the damages are distinct and there is no risk of legally repugnant verdicts.

Facts:

Two brothers were passengers in a vehicle.
Their vehicle was struck by another vehicle involving defendant Pages.
As a result of the collision, one brother was killed.
The surviving brother suffered permanent and severe brain damage.
The accident involved two active tortfeasors who contributed to the cause.
The issue of whether the brothers were wearing seat belts was raised as a factor regarding their injuries.

Procedural Posture:

A wrongful death action was filed in the trial court on behalf of the deceased brother.
A separate personal injury action was filed in the trial court on behalf of the brain-damaged brother.
The cases were assigned to different judges/divisions.
Co-defendants moved to consolidate the cases, which the trial court denied.
Seven months later, Defendant Pages filed a motion to consolidate the two actions for trial.
The trial court denied Pages' motion to consolidate.
Pages petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for a writ of certiorari.

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 trial court depart from the essential requirements of law by denying a motion to consolidate separate wrongful death and personal injury actions arising from the same automobile accident, where the plaintiffs are different and the damages are distinct?

Opinions:

Majority - Pariente

No, the trial court's refusal to consolidate separate causes of action involving distinct damages is not an abuse of discretion merely because they stem from the same accident. The court reasoned that Florida rules of civil procedure permit, but do not mandate, consolidation. Certiorari relief is an extraordinary remedy reserved for departures from the essential requirements of law that cause material injury not correctable on appeal. The court distinguished this case from precedent where failure to consolidate could lead to "repugnant" verdicts (e.g., legally impossible findings of fact). Here, while different juries might apportion fault differently based on seatbelt evidence, such outcomes are not legally repugnant given the distinct nature of the wrongful death and personal injury claims. Furthermore, the defendant delayed in filing the motion, and judicial economy arguments alone are insufficient to warrant certiorari intervention.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold required to obtain writ of certiorari relief for pretrial procedural orders in Florida. It clarifies the distinction between merely "inconsistent" verdicts (which are permissible risks of separate trials) and "repugnant" verdicts (which are logically impossible and require consolidation). The court emphasizes that while judicial economy is valuable, it does not override a trial judge's discretion to manage complex cases with distinct damages—in this instance, the significant difference between wrongful death and brain injury claims. The opinion effectively limits the scope of Tommie v. LaChance, preventing it from becoming a mandate for automatic consolidation in all multi-plaintiff accident cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pages v. Dominguez ex rel. Dominguez (1995)

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