SOL MEGDELL, APPELLANT,

v.

DAVID L. GREENE AND ERNEST N. GOTTLIEB, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Sharp v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …of the claim of error for the denial of the motion for a mistrial and find that in each instance, no reversible error is shown under the rule stated in American Express Company v. Juhasz, 281 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). See also Dukes v. Pinder, 211 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The errors complained of as a basis for a new trial do not present reversible error because the questioned remarks were either a result of invited error, see Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Caribbean Mercantile Export Corpora…
• Martinello v. B & P USA, Inc., 566 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1990)
  …nvitee and that it had breached that duty. Consequently, the court held that the jury properly considered comparative negligence. In its decision, the court acknowledged conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Dukes v. Pinder, 211 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 219 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1968). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We quash the district court’s decision, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to choose which theory should…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Martinello v. B & P USA, Inc., 545 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
  …e not applicable to an invitee. Where, as here, the doctrine of attractive nuisance is inapplicable, princi-pies of ordinary negligence, including comparative negligence apply. Cf. Green Springs, Inc. v. Calvera. To the extent that Dukes v. Pinder, 211 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 219 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1968) may indicate otherwise, we acknowledge conflict. We note that the jury, here, was instructed under Florida Standard Jury Instructions 4.4, on the standard of negligence applicable to a child.1…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Orange City Hills, Inc. v. Fla. Realty Bureau, Inc., 119 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
• Peterson v. Kilbee, 197 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)