UNITEST, N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORPORATION; LAWRENCE GABOURY AND LAWRENCE GABOURY, JR., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,

v.

R. HARDY MATHESON, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Lopez v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 501 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …ibilities, those only slightly probable, are beyond the limit of legal liability.” Lively, 465 So. 2d at 1276. Moreover, a court may make proximate cause determinations as a matter of law where reasonable people could not differ. Hoffman v. Bennett, 477 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Gooding v. University Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1…
• Cortes v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc., 638 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  …the accident — declining to give her the help she needed.8 See Pope v. Pirikerbon-Hays Lumber Co., 120 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), cert. denied, 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961); McCray v. Myers, 614 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hoffman v. Bennett, 477 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Banat v. Armando, 430 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984). See generally Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1958). Affirmed. . She spent most of the intervening time resting uneventfu…
• James E. Guyton and wife v. Herb Howard, 525 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
  …ience created a unique individual duty because there would not have been a skit unless there had been an audience. They contend that their presence at the ceremony was not a substantial factor in producing Guyton’s injury, citing Hoffman v. Bennett, 477 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and that the jury “was given ample opportunity to revisit the individual or active negligence of the appellees” because the jury instruc- [*953] tíons and the second interrogatory in the verdict required the jury to determine if…

Authorities Cited

• Normandy Beach Props. Corp. v. Adams, 107 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1933)