Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey (fladistctapp, 1976-08-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Graves v. Wiggins, 257 So.2d 268 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), and Krasny v. Richter, 211 So.2d 612 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 308. *399 We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated in the instant appeal.
cited Cited "see" Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Timmons
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See the rule in Graves v. Wiggins, Fla.App. 1972, 257 So.2d 268 .
John C. GRAVES, II
v.
Robert WIGGINS
No. 71-325.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 25, 1972.
257 So. 2d 268
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant., Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, Ft. Lau-derdale, Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Sher-ouse & Virgin, Miami, for appellee.
Hendry, Pearson, Swann.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The cause was submitted to the jury under the law of comparative negligence which the parties agreed was applicable because the action was for a maritime tort. The verdict was for the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-appellee in the amount of $15,000, and for the defendant-counterclaimant against the plaintiff-coun-terdefendant for $5,000. The appeal is from the $5,000 judgment entered against the plaintiff-appellant as counterdefendant. No issue is raised as to the way in which the cause was tried or to the form of the verdict.

The point presented challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the negligence of the appellant. Most importantly, it is urged that the facts presented to the jury did not show a legal duty on the appellant to warn the appellee of a dangerous condition. In the alternative it is urged that the facts failed to show appellant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition and that negligence, if any, of appellant was a proximate cause of appellee’s injury.

Our examination of the record convinces us that the application of the rule that upon appeal the appellee is entitled to have the record viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and that the appellee is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence requires affirmance upon the issue as to appellant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition and the issue as to appellant’s negligence being a proximate cause of appellee’s injury. Land v. Patroni, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 94; Krasny v. Richter, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 612.

In addition we find that the evidence is susceptible to the view that the appellant and the appellee were engaged in a joint undertaking for their own pleasure and[*269] that appellant as a participant was aware of the danger involved and appellee was not, nevertheless, appellant proceeded with action which was a contributing cause to appellee’s injury. Cf. Judy v. Belk, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 694; Cashell v. Hart, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 559.

Affirmed.