Doyle v. City of Coral Gables,
33 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 1948). In
DR Lakes, Inc. v. Brandsmart USA,
819 So. 2d 971 (Fla. App. 2002), the court said:
After all, the "right to go to court to resolve our disputes is one of our fundamentalrights."
Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel,
610 So. 2d 419, 424 (1992), the Florida Supreme Court said:
The history of the provision shows the courts' intention to construe the rightliberally in order to guarantee broad accessibility to the courts for resolvingdisputes.
[footnotes omitted]That my causes of action are novel should not be a bar to my being able to proceed with them. 55Fla. Jur 2d Torts § 5 (2012) makes the point very clearly:
In fact, it has been stated that the law “guarantees” every person a remedy whenhe or she has been wronged....… it is generally recognized that if the plaintiff is shown to have suffered a wrong,the mere paucity of cases or absence of any precedent does not constitutesufficient reason for refusing relief if a sound principle of law can be found whichgoverns, or which by analogy ought to govern. The law of torts is anything butstatic, and the limits of its development are never set. When it becomes clear thatthe plaintiff's interests are entitled to legal protection against the conduct of thedefendant, the mere fact that the claim is novel will not of itself operate as a bar to the remedy. That a tort action does not fit into a nicely defined or established“cubbyhole” of the law does not warrant, in itself, the denial of relief to the onewho is injured.
As stated in 86 C.J.S. Torts § 13 (2012):
... the fact that there is no direct precedent involving the protection of a preciselysimilar right, or the recognition of an identical duty, is not conclusive against theexistence of a tort.
Should the court not recognize my right to proceed in this matter, it will establish, as aconsequence, a privilege or immunity to the defendants and others that they can placeunqualified candidates onto Florida ballots, and even into elected office, with virtual impunity.
Clark v. Associated Retail Credit Men,
105 F. 2d 62, 64 (D.C. Cir 1939).Courts need to be alert to adjust their views about torts so as to be able grant relief wherenecessary.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents,
403 US 388 (1971).Applying the foregoing to my case, I have properly brought actionable claims before this courtand am entitled to proceed.
Page 2 of 9