Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll

663 So. 2d 8, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1995 WL 678770
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 16, 1995
DocketNo. 95-20
StatusPublished

This text of 663 So. 2d 8 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stoll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Kowkabany v. Home Depot, Inc.
606 So. 2d 716 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
663 So. 2d 8, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11999, 1995 WL 678770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-stoll-fladistctapp-1995.