Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Lorow

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Lorow

618 So. 2d 309, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4968, 1993 WL 143879

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 1993

DocketNo. 92-157

StatusPublished

This text of 618 So. 2d 309 (Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Lorow) 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

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Lorow, 618 So. 2d 309, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4968, 1993 WL 143879 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment granting the plaintiff a new trial. The only specific and contemporaneous objection made to the points now raised as error was directed to the jury instruction. We hold, however, that the instruction given was not clearly erroneous as it was consistent with the plaintiffs theory of the case and did not, as contended, direct the jury that the defendant had no duty to provide reasonable security on an adjacent non-owned lot used by its customers. See L.K. v. Water’s Edge Ass’n, 532 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The other points complained of were not error or were not preserved for review.

The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment entered on the jury verdict.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment granting the plaintiff a new trial. The only specific and contemporaneous objection made to the points now raised as error was directed to the jury instruction. We hold, however, that the instruction given was not clearly erroneous as it was consistent with the plaintiffs theory of the case and did not, as contended, direct the jury that the defendant had no duty to provide reasonable security on an adjacent non-owned lot used by its customers. See L.K. v. Water’s Edge Ass’n, 532 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The other points complained of were not error or were not preserved for review.

The order granting a new trial is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment entered on the jury verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 So. 2d 309, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4968, 1993 WL 143879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/publix-super-markets-inc-v-lorow-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack