Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Martinello v. B & P USA, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 28, 1989No. 87-1897Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnstead, Judge

I concur with the majority’s reversal for a new trial on the father’s claim. However, I would also reverse for a new trial on the minor’s claim because of the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on the doctrine of attractive nuisance, the theory of liability that the appellants pleaded and attempted to prove against the appellee.

This is an attractive nuisance case involving a child’s injury at a construction site in his neighborhood. At trial the appellee admitted that it was negligent in not better protecting the site from people such as the child here. The appellee admitted that it…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Dukes v. Pinder ex rel. FordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API