"[W]e must view the record and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and any doubt concerning the existence of a disputed issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party." Davis v. Baez, 208 So. 3d 747, 750-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Further, "the decision to grant or deny a continuance is within the trial court's discretion and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."
In reviewing summary judgment, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fresnedo v. Porky's Gym III, Inc., 271 So. 3d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citing Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000) ; Davis v. Baez, 208 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ). III.
We review de novo the trial court's order granting final summary judgment. See Davis v. Baez, 208 So. 3d 747, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In employing this standard of review, "we must view the record and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and any doubt concerning the existence of a disputed issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party."
The standard of review on orders granting final summary judgment is de novo. Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). "[A]ny doubt concerning the existence of a disputed issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party." Davis v. Baez, 208 So. 3d 747, 750-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Section 772.11(1), Florida Statutes (2013), the civil theft statute, provides that:
The standard of review on orders granting final summary judgment is de novo . Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). "[W]e must view the record and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and any doubt concerning the existence of a disputed issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party." Davis v. Baez, 208 So. 3d 747, 750-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Upon review of the record, we find there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City created a dangerous condition that it knew or should have known, given the conflicting evidence submitted by the parties.
We review the issue de novo, Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000), and consider the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2000) ; Davis v. Baez, 208 So.3d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Exculpatory clauses, such as the one at issue here, "that purport to deny an injured party the right to recover damages from another who negligently causes injury are strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability."