Case ID: so2d_688/html/0426-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

POWERMATIC, INC., A DIVISION OF STANWHICH INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. Bismar GONZALEZ, Appellee.
    Nos. 95-2463, 95-1875.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 26, 1997.
    
      Popham, Haik, Schnobrieh & Kaufman and Paul Nettleton, for appellant.
    Beckham & Beckham and Pamela Beck-ham, for appellee.
    Before JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ., and BARKDULL, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. § 768.81(3), Fla. Stat. (1995); Cody v. Kernaghan, 682 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Perry v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 597 So.2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Moorman v. American Safety Equipment, 594 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 606 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1992); Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 583 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 595 So.2d 558 (Fla.1992); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Gainey v. Perkins, 500 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Ford Motor Co. v. Hill, 381 So.2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), app’d, 404 So.2d 1049 (Fla.1981).