Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Smith ex rel. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Smith ex rel. Smith

183 So. 2d 588

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

DocketNo. G-478

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 2d 588 (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Smith ex rel. Smith) 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

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Smith ex rel. Smith, 183 So. 2d 588 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The primary points involved on the appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish appellant’s negligence and to establish appellees’ contributory negligence as a matter of law. Also involved is an attack on the jury’s award upon the ground of excessiveness. It is our view that these questions are factual in nature and were properly submitted to and resolved by the jury. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla.App.1964), 160 So.2d 132, cert. den. Fla.1964, 170 So.2d 589; McDermott v. Engstrom (Fla.1955), 81 So.2d 553; City of Jacksonville v. Stokes (Fla.1954), 74 So.2d 278.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K„ JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The primary points involved on the appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to establish appellant’s negligence and to establish appellees’ contributory negligence as a matter of law. Also involved is an attack on the jury’s award upon the ground of excessiveness. It is our view that these questions are factual in nature and were properly submitted to and resolved by the jury. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc. (Fla.App.1964), 160 So.2d 132, cert. den. Fla.1964, 170 So.2d 589; McDermott v. Engstrom (Fla.1955), 81 So.2d 553; City of Jacksonville v. Stokes (Fla.1954), 74 So.2d 278.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K„ JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winn-dixie-stores-inc-v-smith-ex-rel-smith-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack