BRUCE WALTERS, A MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, GLENN WALTERS, AND GLENN WALTERS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
INDEPENDENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 directed verdict for a concrete plant owner in an attractive nuisance case involving a four-year-old child was improper because the evidence presented jury questions on the existence of an attractive nuisance, the defendant's knowledge, negligence, and comparative fault.
A directed verdict is improper when evidence presents jury questions regarding whether an attractive nuisance existed, whether the defendant had knowledge of it, whether the defendant was negligent, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
[1] In an attractive nuisance case, a directed verdict is improper when the evidence presents jury questions regarding the existence of an attractive nuisance, the defendant'…
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 intelligenceA four-year-old plaintiff was seriously injured while playing with his nine-year-old brother at defendant's unfenced concrete plant on a Saturday afte…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attractive Nuisance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The four year old plaintiff-appellant was seriously injured while playing with his nine year old brother in and about defendant-appellee’s unfenced concrete plant when the plant was closed for business on a Saturday afternoon. Plaintiff’s complaint was predicated on attractive nuisance and there was much evidence introduced in an effort to establish the requisites thereof. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of defendant-appellee, however, finding that, “ . . . there had been no evidence adduced that was legally sufficient to support a verdict for the Plaintiffs, and that as a matter of law, there had been no evi*187dence presented by the Plaintiffs upon which a jury could find the Defendant guilty of any actionable negligence.”
We are of the view that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, presented jury questions as to whether, in the light of all the circumstances, an attractive nuisance existed in fact; if so, whether defendant-appellee was chargeable with knowledge thereof; whether defendant-appellee was indeed negligent in the premises; and whether plaintiff-appellant was capable or was guilty of contributory negligence. A directed verdict was therefore improper. See Fouraker v. Mullis (Fla.App.1960), 120 So.2d 808; and 23 Fla.Jur., Negl., § 63 et seq. Also, cf., Tynan v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. (Fla.1971), 254 So.2d 209.
Reversed.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fouraker v. T. M. Mullis t/d/b/a Mullis Lumber Co., 120 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Tynan v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 254 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1971)