Atwood v. Hendrix
This text of 439 So. 2d 973 (Atwood v. Hendrix) 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.
Opinion
Charles ATWOOD D/B/a Miracle Strip Security Service and Kent Insurance Company, Appellants,
v.
Ruben HENDRIX, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Kathleen V. McCarthy, Hialeah, for appellants.
Norton Bond, Pensacola, for appellee.
MILLS, Judge.
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it failed to find that Hendrix, the plaintiff below, was guilty of comparative negligence as a matter of law for running in the dark in a strange and unfamiliar area. The record shows, however, that this issue was never raised below. Issues not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 1981).
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
439 So. 2d 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atwood-v-hendrix-fladistctapp-1983.