Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 3, 1994No. 93-820Published

1DissentJorgenson, Judge

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs motion for a new trial must be reversed due to the undisputed fact that nonevidentiary materials were given to the jury during deliberations. Moreover, there is a sufficient record from which it can be determined that the error was prejudicial and that a new trial is required.

Brancaccio sued Jackal Corporation’s restaurant for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell while departing the restaurant. Plaintiff contended that he slipped on a wet rubber mat on the inclined surface of the restaurant’s exit/entrance…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bottoson v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Foster v. FillingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Bottoson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  4. State Ex Rel. Larkins v. LewisSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
  5. State Ex Rel. Pryor v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API