Legal Opinion

Knight v. Durland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 1, 1998No. 97-2538PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

We affirm the trial court’s entry of directed verdict holding that the bridge tender did not owe a duty of care to appellees. See McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992). Further, we affirm the trial court’s Order Granting New Trial. However, we remand to the trial court to conduct a jury trial only as to the issue of apportionment of fault between appellants and appel-lees. See Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So.2d 1262 (Fla.1996); see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Viera, 693 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So.2d 687 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McCain v. Florida Power CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  2. Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1996
  3. Schindler Elevator Corp. v. VieraDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Alan Scott, Dc, Pa v. Gregg F. Moses, DcDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API