Knight v. Durland

712 So. 2d 1242, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995, 1998 WL 347189
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 1, 1998·No. No. 97-2538·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of directed verdict holding that the bridge tender did not owe a duty of care to appellees. See McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992). Further, we affirm the trial court’s Order Granting New Trial. However, we remand to the trial court to conduct a jury trial only as to the issue of apportionment of fault between appellants and appel-lees. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1996); see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Viera, 693 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So.2d 687 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Knight v. Durland, 712 So. 2d 1242, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995, 1998 WL 347189 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

712 So. 2d 1242 (Knight v. Durland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alan Scott, Dc, Pa v. Gregg F. Moses, Dc
712 So. 2d 1242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)