HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), ET AL., APPELLANTS.
v.
SORRENTO HOTEL, INC., APPELLEE
HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255 (A. F. OF L.), ET AL., APPELLANTS.
SORRENTO HOTEL, INC., APPELLEE
93 So. 2d 580
Florida Supreme Court (1957)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed on authority of Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255 (A. F. of L.), Fla., 92 So. 2d 415.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Cases-Report NO. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases-Report No. 09-02 (Greater Weight of the Evidence, 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)…find that the (describe the event) was not due to any negligence on the part of (defendant). NOTE ON USE FOR 401.7 * Use the second bracketed paragraph in cases involving exploding bottles, see, e.g., Burkett v. Panama City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 93 So. 2d 580 (Fla.1957), or other instrumentalities that are no longer in the defendant’s control at the time of plaintiffs injury. Compare Wagner v. Associated Shower Door Co., 99 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Use the first bracketed paragraph in all other cas…
-
Miami Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Todd, 101 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1958)…NNELL, JJ., concur. . The plaintiff must show inaccessibility to extraneous, harmful influences and reasonably careful handling in the exploding bottle cases based on res ipsa loquitur, e. g. Burkett v. Panama City Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 580. . Scientific experiments sometimes refute and sometimes, as in this situation, reinforce generally held opinions which are based on common experience. See 11 NAACA Law Journal 158. . We do not intend to imply that in the present case negligent bo…
-
Clemistine Steele v. Royal Crown Cola Bottling Co., 335 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ion was the result of some defect in the bottle, improper charging or mixing of its contents, or negligent manner in its handling while in possession and control of the manufacturer.” See Burkett v. Panama City Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 580; Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Reisinger, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 589; and Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Clark, Fla. App.1974, 299 So. 2d 78. The basic question in the instant appeal is whether the trial court properly granted appellee’s motion f…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Emps. Union, 92 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1957)