Grant v. Whitchurch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grant v. Whitchurch

600 So. 2d 512, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6609, 1992 WL 123478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2463

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 600 So. 2d 512 (Grant v. Whitchurch) 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

Grant v. Whitchurch, 600 So. 2d 512, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6609, 1992 WL 123478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse a summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court erred by striking paragraph 5(c) of the amended complaint. Therefore, there remain issues of [513]*513fact whether the defendants, in the conduct of their babysitting service, are liable for the negligent supervision of, or a failure to supervise, the plaintiffs’ child.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse a summary judgment for the defendants. The trial court erred by striking paragraph 5(c) of the amended complaint. Therefore, there remain issues of [513]*513fact whether the defendants, in the conduct of their babysitting service, are liable for the negligent supervision of, or a failure to supervise, the plaintiffs’ child.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

600 So. 2d 512, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6609, 1992 WL 123478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-whitchurch-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack