EUGENE THOMPSON, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
v.
HILLSIDE BUILDING, LLC., CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, AND THE ESTATE OF ELISA MARGRETTE EUGENIE THOMPSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant's duty in a negligence action is determined as a matter of law based on the requirement of reasonable, general foresight and is not a factual question for the jury.
[1] In a negligence action, the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury, and the duty element is determined by whether the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a 'requirement of reasonable, general foresight is the core of the duty element' in a negligence action and that 'duty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for the jury to decide'”
From McCain v. Florida Power Corp., cited by the court to support the affirmance
Eugene Thompson, as personal representative of the estate of Elisa Margrette Eugenie Thompson, appealed an adverse judgment from the circuit court inv…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
April 24, 2024 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 1992) (holding that a “requirement of reasonable, general foresight is the core of the duty element” in a negligence action and that “duty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for the jury to decide”); see also United States v. Stevens, 994 So. 2d 1062, 1066–67 (Fla. 2008) (reaffirming McCain).
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and BILBREY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
CORRECTED PAGES: 1 Correction is to case style MAILED: June 13, 2024 BY: KS
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Varone v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…DCA 2023). The Florida Supreme Court's opinion in McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992), is “the starting point for any duty analysis under Florida's negligence law.” Chirillo, 199 So. 3d at 249 (quoting United States v. Stevens, 994 So. 2d 1062, 1066 n.2 (Fla. 2008)). "The duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant's conduct foreseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk' that poses a general threat of harm to others.” McCain, 593 So. 2d at 502. "To determine whether the ri…
Authorities Cited
- McCAIN v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- United States v. Stevens, 994 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2008)