FRANZ R. BELHOMME, APPELLANT,

v.

RIGAL PLASTICS, INC., ETC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• J.B. Coxwell Contracting, Inc. v. Shafer, 663 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
  …had known mechanical deficiencies. Further, the employer in that case, as did the employer in this ease, withheld from the employees knowledge of the defects and hazards. The result in this case is in conflict with Belhomme v. Rigal Plastics, Inc., 625 So. 2d 118 (5th DCA 1993). In Belhomme, this court reversed a summary judgment in favor of an employer because: [W]e find that a material issue of fact exists regarding whether Regal’s removal of a safety device was substantially certain to result in appellan…
• Myrick v. Luhrs Corp., 689 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
  …a “substantial certainty that eventually the plane was going to succumb to the incessant forces of gravity causing serious injury to, or the death of, those aboard.” 568 So. 2d at 450, citing Fisher. Similarly, in Belhomme v. Rigal Plastics, Inc., 625 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), this court held that summary judgment was erroneously entered in favor of an employer. We said there was a material issue of fact regarding “whether Rigal’s removal of a safety device was substantially certain to result in appel…
• Leverock v. State, 627 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
  …d object and has appealed the substance abuse treatment conditions. The argument that Leveroek cannot raise this issue now because he did not object to a few similar conditions in the initial probation order is without merit. See MacIntyre v. State, 625 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the drug offender probation order is reversed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

• Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 558 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)