Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, Inc.

559 So. 2d 334, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2336, 1990 WL 39865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2198

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 334 (Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, 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

Kendrick v. Ed's Beach Service, Inc., 559 So. 2d 334, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2336, 1990 WL 39865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee/defendant, Ed’s Beach Service, an independent contractor responsible for providing lifeguard services for a pool at a hotel where appellants were registered guests. Appellants’ claim against Ed’s Beach Service was essentially that the lifeguards had not properly warned appellant of the dangers associated with diving from an unmanned lifeguard stand into 3½ feet of water. We affirm because the record evidence presents no genuine issue of material fact requiring jury determination. Cf., Mazzeo v. City of Sebastian, 550 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1989).

Although appellant’s action was similar to that of the plaintiff in Mazzeo, the testimony here is clear as to what appellant knew or should have known before he dove into the water. Because the record clearly demonstrates the cause of the injuries to be the plaintiff’s intentional conduct, the nexus between any claimed negligence and injury is broken.

Affirmed.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, seek review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee/defendant, Ed’s Beach Service, an independent contractor responsible for providing lifeguard services for a pool at a hotel where appellants were registered guests. Appellants’ claim against Ed’s Beach Service was essentially that the lifeguards had not properly warned appellant of the dangers associated with diving from an unmanned lifeguard stand into 3½ feet of water. We affirm because the record evidence presents no genuine issue of material fact requiring jury determination. Cf., Mazzeo v. City of Sebastian, 550 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1989).

Although appellant’s action was similar to that of the plaintiff in Mazzeo, the testimony here is clear as to what appellant knew or should have known before he dove into the water. Because the record clearly demonstrates the cause of the injuries to be the plaintiff’s intentional conduct, the nexus between any claimed negligence and injury is broken.

Affirmed.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 334, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2336, 1990 WL 39865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-eds-beach-service-inc-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack