MILTON LIFSCHITZ AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FILOMENA TROCCOLI AND EMILIO TROCCOLI, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
MILTON LIFSCHITZ AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
FILOMENA TROCCOLI AND EMILIO TROCCOLI, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
436 So. 2d 951
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the jury verdict and judgment entered thereon upon a holding that (1) the visibility of the danger Troccoli encountered and whether she used due care under the circumstances are issues properly left for the jury, see City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1954); Brown v. McArthur Dairies, Inc., 280 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Bryant v. Florida Inland Theatres, Inc., 274 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and (2) Lifschitz has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating prejudicial error regarding comments of the trial court, see Thompson v. Martin, 216 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Life Care Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Sawgrass Care Ctr., Inc., 683 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…mended order in which a hearing officer had addressed proposed findings of fact with specificity. But see Kinast v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Pelham v. Superintendent of School Bd. of Wakulla County, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In the present case, the hearing officer— as he was then known4 — did essentially nothing more than “simply rule[ ] on all proposed findings in a single broadly phrased paragraph.” Island Harbor, 476 So. 2d at 1353. Discerning…
-
Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Dep't OF Natural Res., 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ation, 340 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Wong v. Career Service Commission, 371 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Pelham v. Superintendent of School Board of Wakulla County, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kinast v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). DNR, on the other hand, argues that section 120.59(2) does not require the hearing officer to rule separately on each proposed finding submitted in…1 / 2
-
Berthold Kinast v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…This is not the first time the court has addressed a hearing officer’s failure to comply with § 120.59(2). The same type of “blanket” statement was used to dispose of proposed findings in Pelham v. Superintendent of the Wakulla County School Board, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In rejecting the statement, the court held that [t]his cannot be regarded as the kind of explicit ruling on a party’s proposed findings required by Section 120.59(2). Moreover, to the extent that the ... [*1161] statement of th…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Brown v. McARTHUR Dairies, Inc., 280 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Thompson v. Martin, 216 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- State v. Keel Kilker and Donald J. Huffmaster, 274 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)