HomeMy WebLinkAbout0892 j f
I? 1 1
~ I ;
i~
i
44100
463580
pe
-Pecen? j
i
i
i n~ TES clruvlT votrKr aF T~ ~
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AMID FOR ST. LUCIE
- 00(~TI'Y, ~ FLORIIaA
CASE NO. 79-106 CA ~ `
i
JOE SI~VFN DO?I'SON and
KATf~tYN RAY,
Plaintiffs,
r ,
vs.
ST. LUCIE OOUN1'Y- FORT
PIERLL~ FIRE DISTRICT, C~OR~
LUIS FI~1GIArD, and AE'I1~1 CASUALTY & SURE`L'Y OOr~ANY,
t
Defendants.
FII~1i, J[~gNr
THIS CAUSE having one on to be heard with the benefit of
Jury on the 20th day of August, 1979 and oor?tinuing through the 2Lst day of ,
August, 1979, and it appearing to the Court that a jury was duly impaneled F
and swt~rn in accordance with the law, and after reviewing the various doc~anezrts
introduced into evidence, and after hearing testimony of the Plaintiffs and
f
their individual witnesses, and the testimony of the Defendants, and their ' }
} ~
individual witnesses, and the argument of counsel, and the charge of the ~ ~
r
Court, the jury retired to consider their verdict and upon returning it to
{
open Court, ordered the following verdict:
JURY VERDICT
"We, the jury, find as follaas:
(1) .Was there negligence on the part of the Defendants, ST. LUCIE OOiJNI'Y-
FORT PIERCE FIRE DISTRICT and G'EOR'GE I~)IS II3QAI~ID, which was a legal cause
of damage too the Plaintiff? Yes.
(2) Was there negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, JOE S'i~'VFN DO?I5OiN,
which was a legal cause of his damage? Yes.
(3) State the percentage of any negligence which was a legal cause of
i
damage to the Plaintiffs, JOE Si'E`lIIJ DO~I5ON and KAT4~tYN RAY, that you ~ 3
Charge t0:
5
Plaintiff, JOE S`TF'VIId DC7TSG[V 70$
Defendant, GORGE I1JIS IIJGLArID, and
ST. LUCIE UOUNi'Y - FT. PIEF~E
FIRE DISTRICT 30$ ~
I ~
~ ~t~n ~1 ~
3 ^K,,~9 PaGE ~ aat~3~~ t~CE 1~ ~ ~
L~-..L~...{i