205 So. 2d 16 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 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; Ramsey v. Ivey, Fla.App.1966, 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.