KARL SCHULTZ, JR., A MINOR, BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DOROTHY I. SCHULTZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS DONALDSON, APPELLEE
The mother recovered medical expenses and loss of services in her derivative claim of the negligent action of the defendant, appellee here. The minor recovered nothing for pain and suffering and appeals to this court.
We believe the case falls within the purview of Pickel v. Rosen, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 730. On the authority of Pickel we reverse on the matter of damages only and remand for a new trial so that the jury may determine the sole issue of the damage to the minor plaintiff. See also Griffis v. Hill, Fla., 230 So.2d 143, opinion filed ,T , ir, 1A,n November 19, 1969.
Reversed and remanded.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)…circumstances revealed in this opinion, did the plaintiff, Mrs. Lunney, occupy the status of an invitee under either (1) the invitation test stated in Second Restatement of Torts, § 332, and the case of Smith v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 195, or (2) under the economic benefit test promulgated in McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 185?” (Lunney v. Post, supra, at 510.) We have jurisdiction to review by certio-rari the decision of the District Court. Art. V, § 4(2), Fla.Const., F.S.A…1 / 3
-
ARP v. Waterway E. Ass'n, Inc., 217 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…hich this entrant was pursuing, and that such use was not only acquiesced in by the owner or possessor, but that it was in accordance with the intention and design with which the way or place was adopted or prepared. Smith v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 232 So. 2d 195, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). An uninvited licensee is a person who chooses “to come upon the premises solely for [his or her] own convenience [*121] without invitation either expressed or reasonably implied under the circumstances.” Wood, 284 So. 2d a…
-
Bishop v. First Nat'l Bank OF Fla., Inc., 609 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…persons who were invited on the premises, without any business purpose connection, as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. In explaining the invitation test, the court in Smith v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 232 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), stated: the invitation test bases “invitation” on the fact that the occupier by his arrangement of the premises or other conduct has led the entrant to believe that the premises were intended to be used by visitors for the purp…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffis v. Hill, 230 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1969)
- Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)