Lifschitz v. Troccoli

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lifschitz v. Troccoli

436 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22764

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 5, 1983·No. No. 82-507·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the jury verdict and judgment entered thereon upon a holding that (1) the visibility of the danger Troccoli encountered and whether she used due care under the circumstances are issues properly left for the jury, see City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So.2d 278 (Fla.1954); Brown v. McArthur Dairies, Inc., 280 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Bryant v. Florida Inland Theatres, Inc., 274 So.2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and (2) Lifschitz has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating prejudicial error regarding comments of the trial court, see Thompson v. Martin, 216 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the jury verdict and judgment entered thereon upon a holding that (1) the visibility of the danger Troccoli encountered and whether she used due care under the circumstances are issues properly left for the jury, see City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So.2d 278 (Fla.1954); Brown v. McArthur Dairies, Inc., 280 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Bryant v. Florida Inland Theatres, Inc., 274 So.2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and (2) Lifschitz has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating prejudicial error regarding comments of the trial court, see Thompson v. Martin, 216 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

Lifschitz v. Troccoli, 436 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22764 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

436 So. 2d 951 (Lifschitz v. Troccoli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related