Case Name: Eric JENKINS, by his guardian and next friend, Frederick Jenkins, and Frederick Jenkins, Individually, Appellants, v. J. I. CASE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply, a Florida Corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-12-23
Citations: 341 So. 2d 234
Docket Number: Nos. 75-1876 and 75-1877
Parties: Eric JENKINS, by his guardian and next friend, Frederick Jenkins, and Frederick Jenkins, Individually, Appellants, v. J. I. CASE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 341
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Eric JENKINS, by his guardian and next friend, Frederick Jenkins, and Frederick Jenkins, Individually, Appellants, v. J. I. CASE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
Nos. 75-1876 and 75-1877.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 23, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1977.
Beckham & McAliley, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellants.
High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby and Alan R. Dakan, Adams, George, Lee & Schulte, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals question the correctness of the summary final judgments rendered in favor of the appellees in actions arising from injuries sustained by appellant Eric Jenkins, a minor, when a riding lawnmower was backed over his foot. Appellee J. I. Case Company was the manufacturer of the lawnmower and appellee Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply was the dealer which sold the machine to the user.
The record on appeal discloses that appel-lees have not carried their burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Manufacturing Co., 261 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) it was pointed out:
"When reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the classic inquiry is whether or not there remains any genuine issue of material fact. If issues of fact exist and the slightest doubt remains, a summary judgment cannot be granted. And, of course, all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party."
For these reasons the summary final judgments appealed are reversed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.