Erickson v. J & J Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erickson v. J & J Industries, Inc.

929 So. 2d 37, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5454, 2006 WL 941809

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-2723

StatusPublished

This text of 929 So. 2d 37 (Erickson v. J & J Industries, Inc.) 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

Erickson v. J & J Industries, Inc., 929 So. 2d 37, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5454, 2006 WL 941809 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Simpson v. Simpson, 232 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (noting when the evidence shows that there was an invisible substance (within a pool of water) which caused a party to slip and fall, negligence (including comparative negligence) becomes a question for the jury); Stock v. Gross, 186 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (noting where the condition created by the defendant constituted a hidden trap (within an obviously dangerous condition such as a wet walkway), the facts presented a classic case for a jury decision as to plaintiffs contributory negligence); see also St. Pierre v. Public Gas Co., 423 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“The question of apportioning the negligence between the plaintiff and the defendant is ... peculiarly within the province of the jury.... ”).

THOMPSON, SAWAYA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Simpson v. Simpson, 232 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (noting when the evidence shows that there was an invisible substance (within a pool of water) which caused a party to slip and fall, negligence (including comparative negligence) becomes a question for the jury); Stock v. Gross, 186 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (noting where the condition created by the defendant constituted a hidden trap (within an obviously dangerous condition such as a wet walkway), the facts presented a classic case for a jury decision as to plaintiffs contributory negligence); see also St. Pierre v. Public Gas Co., 423 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“The question of apportioning the negligence between the plaintiff and the defendant is ... peculiarly within the province of the jury.... ”).

THOMPSON, SAWAYA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 So. 2d 37, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5454, 2006 WL 941809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-j-j-industries-inc-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack