ROOSEVELT BOGAN, PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF RAYMOND BOGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL T. HOFFMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant in a wrongful death action where the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence that the defendant's dredging caused the child's drowning.
A directed verdict for the defendant was proper where the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant's dredging operation caused the child's death.
[1] A directed verdict is proper in a negligence action when the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence establishing the causal connection between the defendant's con…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA nine-year-old boy drowned while swimming in Pensacola Bay near a wayside park. The defendant had dredged a hole in the navigable waters with proper …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment, entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of appellee, in a wrongful death action instituted by appellant.
The appellant’s complaint alleged that ap-pellee dredged a large hole in the navigable waters of Pensacola Bay, adjacent to a wayside park, and negligently failed to place warning devices for swimmers and created a nuisance. Appellant further alleged that as a result thereof his nine-year old son, while swimming in the waters, stepped off in the hole dredged by appel-lee and was drowned.
At the jury trial, appellee testified that he had obtained the proper permits for dredging and that the place where the dredging took place was not the place where the child had drowned. Photographs were admitted into evidence and appellant contended that said exhibits show where the child drowned and that the drowning took place in the dredged area. Appellee contended that the area in which the dredging took place was not depicted on the photograph and, therefore, the place where the drowning occurred was not the place that was dredged. After appellant presented his evidence and testimony, the trial court, upon motion, directed a verdict in favor of appellee.
After fully reviewing all the evidence in this record, we agree that the trial judge was correct in finding that no sufficient evidence was submited on which the jury could legally find for the plaintiff.
Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below, the judgment appealed herein is accordingly affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.