Lifschitz v. Troccoli

436 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22764
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 1983
DocketNo. 82-507
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

Pelham v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCH. BD. OF WAKULLA CTY.
436 So. 2d 951 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 So. 2d 951, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lifschitz-v-troccoli-fladistctapp-1983.