Lloyd v. Powell Bros., Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lloyd v. Powell Bros., Inc.

382 So. 2d 1374, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1189

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 1374 (Lloyd v. Powell Bros., 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

Lloyd v. Powell Bros., Inc., 382 So. 2d 1374, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16159 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant in a personal injury action. Appellants contend that the evidence required that a verdict be directed against the appellee on the issue of whether a particular crane operator, who negligently injured plaintiff, was the employee of appellee or the borrowed servant of appellant’s own employer at the time of the injury. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find that the borrowed servant issue was a proper one for submission to the jury on conflicting evidence. See Berrier v. Associated Indemnity Co., 142 Fla. 351, 196 So. 188 (1940), and Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695, 167 So. 358 (1936), modified 128 Fla. 707, 175 So. 515 (1937). We have examined appellants’ remaining point on appeal and find that error has not been demonstrated. The final judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant in a personal injury action. Appellants contend that the evidence required that a verdict be directed against the appellee on the issue of whether a particular crane operator, who negligently injured plaintiff, was the employee of appellee or the borrowed servant of appellant’s own employer at the time of the injury. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find that the borrowed servant issue was a proper one for submission to the jury on conflicting evidence. See Berrier v. Associated Indemnity Co., 142 Fla. 351, 196 So. 188 (1940), and Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 123 Fla. 695, 167 So. 358 (1936), modified 128 Fla. 707, 175 So. 515 (1937). We have examined appellants’ remaining point on appeal and find that error has not been demonstrated. The final judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 1374, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyd-v-powell-bros-inc-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack