Foster v. Beverly Enterprises-Distribution Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Foster v. Beverly Enterprises-Distribution Services, Inc.

827 So. 2d 1104, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15089, 2002 WL 31306848

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-636

StatusPublished

This text of 827 So. 2d 1104 (Foster v. Beverly Enterprises-Distribution Services, 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

Foster v. Beverly Enterprises-Distribution Services, Inc., 827 So. 2d 1104, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15089, 2002 WL 31306848 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

William Foster, as personal representative of the estate of his brother, Donald C. Foster (the decedent), appeals the trial court’s order granting a directed verdict and judgment in favor of the Appellees. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Foster did not meet his burden of establishing that negligence on the part of the Appellees was the proximate cause of injury to the decedent. Therefore, the directed verdict was proper. See Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.1984); MacAlpine v. Martin, 205 So.2d 347, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). As to the other issues raised on appeal, we affirm without comment.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

William Foster, as personal representative of the estate of his brother, Donald C. Foster (the decedent), appeals the trial court’s order granting a directed verdict and judgment in favor of the Appellees. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Foster did not meet his burden of establishing that negligence on the part of the Appellees was the proximate cause of injury to the decedent. Therefore, the directed verdict was proper. See Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.1984); MacAlpine v. Martin, 205 So.2d 347, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). As to the other issues raised on appeal, we affirm without comment.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 So. 2d 1104, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15089, 2002 WL 31306848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-beverly-enterprises-distribution-services-inc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack