Claire’s Boutiques v. Locastro
Florida District Court of Appeal
85 So. 3d 1192 (2012)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
When Amy Locastro (plaintiff) took her daughter Alexis to Claire’s Boutiques (Claire’s) (defendant) to get Alexis’s ears pierced, Amy signed a form releasing Claire’s from any liability and agreeing to indemnify the company from claims Amy or Alexis might make. After Alexis’s ears were pierced, she developed a serious infection, which required her to be hospitalized. Alexis’s ear suffered permanent disfigurement. Amy sued Claire’s for negligence, both as an individual and on Alexis’s behalf. A jury ruled in favor of Alexis and determined that Claire’s was 75 percent negligent, with judgment against Claire’s in the amount of $69,740. Claire’s moved for a new trial and for a directed verdict, but the trial court denied the motions. Claire’s also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to force Amy to indemnify Claire’s per the agreement. Likewise, Amy filed a summary-judgment motion on the ground that the indemnification effectively made Alexis’s claim into a claim against Amy as indemnifier and parents cannot be sued by their children. On the indemnification claim by Claire’s, the trial court ruled that the agreement was valid against Amy as an individual but not as Alexis’s parent. The court awarded judgment against Amy in the amount of $200,274, which even included the amount of the judgment for Alexis and the legal fees of Claire’s. Amy appealed the judgment regarding indemnification. Claire’s appealed the denial of the directed verdict and the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Polen, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Levine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.