Case Name: Clyde MEACHAM et al., Appellants, v. NOONAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., a corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-03-23
Citations: 260 So. 2d 235
Docket Number: No. O-488
Parties: Clyde MEACHAM et al., Appellants, v. NOONAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
Judges: SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 260
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
Clyde MEACHAM et al., Appellants, v. NOONAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
No. O-488.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 23, 1972.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1972.
Wilmer H. Mitchell, of Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard & Mitchell, Pensacola, for appellants.
Joe J. Harrell, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, and Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal challenges the correctness of a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees.
A careful examination of the record on appeal conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine triable issue of a material fact with respect to appellees' liability for the damages suffered by appellants, and that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. 23 Fla.Jur. 281, Negligence, § 37; DeLuca v. Manchester Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company (1955) 380 Pa. 484, 112 A.2d 372; Kite v. Jones (1957) 389 Pa. 339, 132 A.2d 683; Cotter v. Bell (1965) 417 Pa. 560, 208 A.2d 216; Tuz v. Burmeister (Fla.App.1971) 254 So.2d 569; General Telephone Company of Florida, Inc. v. Mahr (Fla.App.1963) 153 So.2d 13.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.