McDaniel v. Zoldak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDaniel v. Zoldak

423 So. 2d 572, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21933

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1982

DocketNo. AL-18

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 572 (McDaniel v. Zoldak) 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

McDaniel v. Zoldak, 423 So. 2d 572, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21933 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting appellees’ motion for directed verdict; we conclude that the motion was improperly granted and we reverse the order appealed.

Appellant brought an action against ap-pellees, alleging that appellees had diverted the natural flow of surface water across appellant’s property. After appellant’s evidence was presented appellees moved for directed verdict; the trial judge granted the motion, finding that the natural flow of water had been diverted but that appellant’s property retained an “escape point” for the dispersal of surface water. However, the evidentiary exhibits and testimony present a factual dispute as to whether appellees’ alterations to their land have caused an increase in the amount of standing water which must accumulate on appellant’s property before the overflow begins to disperse through the “escape point.” Where the evidence presents such a disputed issue of material fact a motion for directed verdict should not be granted. See e.g., Gates v. Chrysler Corp., 397 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Accordingly, the order granting a directed verdict is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting appellees’ motion for directed verdict; we conclude that the motion was improperly granted and we reverse the order appealed.

Appellant brought an action against ap-pellees, alleging that appellees had diverted the natural flow of surface water across appellant’s property. After appellant’s evidence was presented appellees moved for directed verdict; the trial judge granted the motion, finding that the natural flow of water had been diverted but that appellant’s property retained an “escape point” for the dispersal of surface water. However, the evidentiary exhibits and testimony present a factual dispute as to whether appellees’ alterations to their land have caused an increase in the amount of standing water which must accumulate on appellant’s property before the overflow begins to disperse through the “escape point.” Where the evidence presents such a disputed issue of material fact a motion for directed verdict should not be granted. See e.g., Gates v. Chrysler Corp., 397 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Accordingly, the order granting a directed verdict is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 572, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-zoldak-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack