
    Eric JENKINS, by his guardian and next friend, Frederick Jenkins, and Frederick Jenkins, Individually, Appellants, v. J. I. CASE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, and Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
    Nos. 75-1876 and 75-1877.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 23, 1976.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1977.
    Beckham & McAliley, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellants.
    High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby and Alan R. Dakan, Adams, George, Lee & Schulte, Miami, for appellees.
    Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals question the correctness of the summary final judgments rendered in favor of the appellees in actions arising from injuries sustained by appellant Eric Jenkins, a minor, when a riding lawnmower was backed over his foot. Appellee J. I. Case Company was the manufacturer of the lawnmower and appellee Dadeland Farm & Garden Supply was the dealer which sold the machine to the user.

The record on appeal discloses that appel-lees have not carried their burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Manufacturing Co., 261 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) it was pointed out:

“When reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the classic inquiry is whether or not there remains any genuine issue of material fact. If issues of fact exist and the slightest doubt remains, a summary judgment cannot be granted. And, of course, all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.”

For these reasons the summary final judgments appealed are reversed.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  