Case ID: so2d_276/html/0097-01.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

Edward C. TIETIG, Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.
    No. 72-702.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 28, 1973.
    Rehearing Denied April 27, 1973.
    Ben J. Weaver, Jr., and Don G. Nicholson of Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett, Miami, for appellant.
    David J. Kadyk and Ted R. Manry, III, of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee-Watson and Co.
    Karl V. Hart and Lawrence R. Metsch of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for appellees-Zinke-Smith, Inc. and Reliance Ins. Co.
   PER CURIAM.

A review of the recent cases discussing the criteria to be applied in determining the adequacy of the complaint compels us to the conclusion that the complaint m the case sub judice contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action against the defendants. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Walters, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 563; Iorio v. Layman, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 26; Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., Fla.App. 1971, 246 So.2d 631.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.