and for a new trial to determine whether and to what extent the collision was the proximate cause of Appellant’s injuries and what amount of damages, if any, should be awarded to Appellant. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. No additional motions for rehearing will be entertained. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith. KAHN and CLARK, JJ., concur. 1 . The jury answered "No” when asked on the verdict form whether there was "negligence on the part of Defendants, Comcast of Greater Florida/Georgia, Inc. and Troy C. Koonce, which was a legal cause of injury to Plaintiff, Cindy Sorel Ebner.” 2 . In some cases, the first two elements have been grouped together as "the issue of liability.” See, e.g., Westchester Exxon v. Valdes, 524 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the last two elements are
holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that the fourth amendment violation alleged by plaintiff also suffices to establish the breach of a duty of care under california law