McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

113 So. 2d 437, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2619

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 1959

DocketNo. 58-639

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 So. 2d 437 (McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) 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

McDonald v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 113 So. 2d 437, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2619 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action .appeals from a summary final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff was a workman in a construction crew remodeling a warehouse and the defendant, Astor Electric Service, Inc., was the electrical contractor upon the job. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment came on to be heard upon the complaint, answer and the deposition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon his deposition and defendant’s answers to interrogatories. After indulging in every reasonable presumption for the party against whom summary judgment was sought it conclusively appeared from the facts which were established without material issue that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. See Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 53; Kagan v. Eisenstadt, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 370; Andrews v. Goetz, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 653.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action .appeals from a summary final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff was a workman in a construction crew remodeling a warehouse and the defendant, Astor Electric Service, Inc., was the electrical contractor upon the job. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment came on to be heard upon the complaint, answer and the deposition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon his deposition and defendant’s answers to interrogatories. After indulging in every reasonable presumption for the party against whom summary judgment was sought it conclusively appeared from the facts which were established without material issue that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. See Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 53; Kagan v. Eisenstadt, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 370; Andrews v. Goetz, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 653.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 2d 437, 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-fladistctapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack