HomeMy WebLinkAbout1287 ~
~
i~lE GQ41i~~~1~. ~~_~13 ~
~~~f 11 ?O~TII~fUIIT ` i
• CItRK Cld„~iT 00
?~CARD VtP.F~ 0 ~ IN 14t1! CIYIL OIVISION OP ;
COU~ITY COUa? IIi MiD FOit `
~ I I M~ SAII~iT LUCIa OOUNTY, FIARIDA' ;
CASE N0. 76-1S30-SP ;
~~~.413 i
1
~
R. N. FARACE ~
Pla intif f '
-va -
I~ L FOLBRBCAT d/ b/ a
t~IBI.TRA BOAT ?RAILBR SALBS
D~fendant
~
O R D B R
In sach and every cass the plaintiff ha~ the burdsn of proof.
`ihile it is through an Lsplied Warranty of fitnasa as intended, it is '
,
obligatorp upon the plaintiff to danon~trata by ths graater xeight of tha
evidanca the conditioea of the Warranty. In the instant caas, ic is
obvioua to the Court that da~oags did occur as tha raault of the failure in
a apring to properly saintain the load placed upon it of a boat. Fra~ the
evidence pteasnted, Chis Court cannot detar~ine whether or not the apecific
fact of the defendant'a knowledge of ths veight to be placed upon the
~
; trailer Waa astabliahed. Bach party adequately preasnted ita caae but
f
' the plaintiff failed to meet hhe burden of proof. Zt is, therafore, ~ ~
f ~
" ORDSRSD AND ADJUDGBD that the plaintiff go henca vithout day and
~ . ~
~ take nothing-°by thia cauae. f
~ DATSD this ~3 dsy of February, 1975. ~
i }
~ t
~ ~
{
~
~ //~y~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ . .
; V~~~
~s \i~ Yl~ a i
~ ~ ~ ' . ^ 7~t
~ ~ , . . • _
g • . - QA
',i3 . . •
[i
~ ~ ,
" ' - • ~ i. .I ~
, Y=~ . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i ~
~ `t. yY. ..i
r ' i
sy ~ ~~fa.. L~Cf~R~; ti•
~ ~ 3.• ~~f~r:-r
%j2~=. .t~.
' . . • t-. .i
S .
r
e~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ •
~ B~I( ~.~IJ PJUf ~L~~
Si
~
ti
~
~
~ . . _ . . ~ . . ~ . . . _ . ~ . . ~...~.:i
- . . _ "N'_.a