No. 920 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 18, 1967
The defendant-appellant appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff-appellee for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was a paying customer at the defendant’s amusement facilities.
The appellant’s principal contention is that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor as the evidence was insufficient upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, con-tributorily negligent and had assumed the risk.
The record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence and proper inferences to withstand the thrust of a motion for a directed verdict. We have previously set forth the rules governing directed verdicts in Macrellis v. George, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 107" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1967-08-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/macrellis-v-george-7424188?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7424188">202 So.2d 107; Ramsey v. Ivey, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 499" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1966-03-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ramsey-ex-rel-twin-city-fire-insurance-v-ivey-7417706?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7417706">184 So.2d 499.
Regarding the issue of the defendant’s negligence, we believe that a jury
The remaining points raised on appeal have been considered and determined to be without merit.
Affirmed.