McGriff v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGriff v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc.

258 So. 2d 468

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 29, 1972

DocketNo. 71-610

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 So. 2d 468 (McGriff v. Associated Grocers of Florida, 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

McGriff v. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., 258 So. 2d 468 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a final judgment entered by the trial court after the defendant had moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; the motion had been reserved by the court, and the jury had reported its verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The question to be determined is whether a directed verdict was justified because the evidence considered as an entirety failed to prove the plaintiff’s case. Bruner v. Hart, Fla.1910, 59 Fla. 171, 51 So. 593 (1910); Jackson v. Harrell, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 633. Our review of the evidence indicates that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of duty owed him by the defendant, one of the essential elements of negligence. See Abrams v. Nolan Brown Cadillac Co., Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 131.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a final judgment entered by the trial court after the defendant had moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence; the motion had been reserved by the court, and the jury had reported its verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The question to be determined is whether a directed verdict was justified because the evidence considered as an entirety failed to prove the plaintiff’s case. Bruner v. Hart, Fla.1910, 59 Fla. 171, 51 So. 593 (1910); Jackson v. Harrell, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 633. Our review of the evidence indicates that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of duty owed him by the defendant, one of the essential elements of negligence. See Abrams v. Nolan Brown Cadillac Co., Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 131.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 So. 2d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgriff-v-associated-grocers-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack