Chomar v. Tropicanada Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chomar v. Tropicanada Corp.

419 So. 2d 351, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20929

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2101

StatusPublished

This text of 419 So. 2d 351 (Chomar v. Tropicanada Corp.) 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

Chomar v. Tropicanada Corp., 419 So. 2d 351, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20929 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court correctly set aside the jury verdict and entered judgment in accordance with the appellee’s prior motion for directed verdict when the only evidence as to the alleged slippery condition of the stairway, testimony by appellants’ expert witness, was stricken when it was discovered that the expert’s friction coefficient tests were conducted on the wrong stairwell. Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So.2d 850 (Fla.1969); Conn v. Seawind Enterprises, Inc., 406 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979); Wirt v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp., Inc., 306 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 288 (Fla.1975); Partelow v. Edgar, 219 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 539 (Fla.1969); Stolmaker v. Bowerman, 100 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

In light of our disposition, the cross-appeal as to denial of the motion for new trial is dismissed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court correctly set aside the jury verdict and entered judgment in accordance with the appellee’s prior motion for directed verdict when the only evidence as to the alleged slippery condition of the stairway, testimony by appellants’ expert witness, was stricken when it was discovered that the expert’s friction coefficient tests were conducted on the wrong stairwell. Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So.2d 850 (Fla.1969); Conn v. Seawind Enterprises, Inc., 406 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979); Wirt v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp., Inc., 306 So.2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 288 (Fla.1975); Partelow v. Edgar, 219 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 539 (Fla.1969); Stolmaker v. Bowerman, 100 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).

In light of our disposition, the cross-appeal as to denial of the motion for new trial is dismissed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 So. 2d 351, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chomar-v-tropicanada-corp-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack