Legal Opinion

Starling v. Saha

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 10, 1984No. 82-1457PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The Starlings appeal from a final summary judgment entered against them on their negligence count (Count I) and the dismissal of their attractive nuisance count (Count II). The appellants sued the Sahas after their minor son, Chad, drowned while swimming in a pond which had been excavated on the Sahas’ land. Chad was an excellent swimmer, but he was caught and held under water by the suction of a hose attached to a pump, which had been left running, unsupervised, at the pond. We think the attractive nuisance count states a good cause of action and it was improperly *518dismissed; but we affirm…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Ansin v. ThurstonSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
  3. Stark v. HoltzclawSupreme Court of Florida · 1925
  4. Carter v. Livesay Window Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1954
  5. Allen v. William P. McDonald CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1949

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walt Disney World Co. v. GoodeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  2. In Re Estate of StarlingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  3. Longmore v. SAGA BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASS'N, INC.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004

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

Powered by the Exa API