.

Case Law Alerts

Competent, Substantial Evidence Is the Name of the Game in Construction Disputes

Q.D.S. Development, Inc. v. National Lining Systems, Inc., 2024 WL 357984 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 31, 2024)

April 1, 2024

by Lindsay G. McCormick

It is common in construction disputes between sophisticated parties for the parties to agree to engage in a bench trial, as opposed to a trial by jury. There are a number of reasons to choose this option, such as complicated issues, the belief that the subject is rather dry, and the lack of faith that a jury will follow the intricacies of the arguments and defenses. In any event, it is important to note the impact of proceeding with a bench trial, and a good example of those consequences can be found in the recent case of Q.D.S. Development, Inc. v. National Lining Systems, Inc. First, you must note that in a bench trial, the judge’s findings of fact carry the same weight as that of a verdict from a jury. Second, on appeal from a bench trial, the appellate court can only reverse the judgment if the judge’s findings of fact are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 

In Q.D.S. Development, there was a dispute involving a liner installed in a pond on a golf course, issues with the work, and the general contractor’s failure to pay final invoices for the liner subcontractor. During a bench trial, the judge entered a judgment in favor of the subcontractor, requiring the general contractor to pay the unpaid invoices, and issued a lengthy order, including findings of fact. The general contractor appealed, arguing the trial court misjudged the situation. The appellate court reviewed the record, but only to determine whether the trial court’s findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. In doing so, the appellate court is required to “interpret the record and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusions.” Thereupon, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

This matter should serve as a reminder that even if you believe you have a good case—with good arguments and good support—the other side likely feels the same way. At the end of the day, there is no guarantee a judge or a jury will agree with you. Appeals are limited in their review, and there is never a guarantee that the judgement will “get it right” in regard to your arguments.  


Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.