Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll

663 So. 2d 8, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1995 WL 678770

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 16, 1995·No. No. 95-20·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment entered following a directed verdict on causation in a personal injury action. We must reverse and remand for a new trial because evidence on causation was conflicting and should have been presented to the jury for determination. Kowkabany v. Home Depot, Inc., 606 So.2d 716, 719-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (directed verdict can be upheld only if there is no evidence or inference from the evidence which will support the non-moving party’s position).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment entered following a directed verdict on causation in a personal injury action. We must reverse and remand for a new trial because evidence on causation was conflicting and should have been presented to the jury for determination. Kowkabany v. Home Depot, Inc., 606 So.2d 716, 719-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (directed verdict can be upheld only if there is no evidence or inference from the evidence which will support the non-moving party’s position).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

BOOTH, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll, 663 So. 2d 8, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1995 WL 678770 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

663 So. 2d 8 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related