LUERAIN FRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court's directed verdict for Winn-Dixie was reversed because whether the store negligently displayed Pine-Sol bottles protruding beyond shelf edges was a jury question, not a matter of law.
Whether a store negligently displayed glass bottles protruding beyond shelf edges is a jury question and cannot be decided as a matter of law by directed verdict.
[1] Whether a merchant negligently displayed merchandise on store shelves is ordinarily a question for the jury and cannot be resolved by directed verdict as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Frison was injured in a Winn-Dixie grocery store while reaching for a smaller bottle of Pine-Sol; larger bottles were stacked to protrude approxi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Directing a verdict for the defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., the trial judge declared that a dangerous condition would be created only if the glass bottles of Pine-Sol (a slippery liquid cleanser) were displayed on the defendant’s grocery store shelves so that more than fifty per cent of the three-to-four-inch base of the bottles overlapped the edges of the shelves. Under this restrictive view of “dangerous condition,” only store customers caught in an avalanche of Pine-Sol bottles falling to the floor as a result of imbalance and gravity could possibly recover for injuries. Since Mrs. Frison was admittedly not the victim of freely falling bottles, but instead, while reaching for a less accessible, smaller bottle of Pine-Sol, she apparently dislodged the larger bottles which were stacked so as to protrude an inch beyond the edges of the shelves, she was denied recovery by the trial court.
Winn-Dixie’s argument, here and below, that the bottles could not fall down by themselves is hardly a basis for a finding that, as a matter of law, the store was not negligent, even if the plaintiff herself was negligent. See Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Whether Winn-Dixie was negligent in shelving the glass bottles so that they precariously protruded an inch beyond the edges of the shelves is most assuredly a jury question. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered upon the directed verdict in favor of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valdes v. Faby Enters., Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…rative negligence. The judgment in favor of Faby is reversed. Whether Faby was negligent in stacking the cases of beer at the height and in the manner and location in which it did was a question for the jury. See Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla.3d DCA 1981) (directed verdict for defendant reversed on ground that question of whether the manner of shelving glass bottles constitutes negligence is for the jury to decide). See also Navison v. Winn & Lovett Tampa, Inc., 92 So. 2d 531 (Fla.1…
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 596 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…s legal responsibility for the dangerous condition, required the denial of its motion for directed verdict. See Valdes v. Faby Enterprises, Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frisan v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Keene presented competent evidence to prove each element of the negligence charged against Chicago Bridge, and was entitled to have the jury pass on the sufficiency of his case. It was reversible error to grant the motion for di…
-
Klaue v. Galencare, Inc., 696 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…cular manner, and at a particular location thus causing a dangerous condition to exist is a jury question. See Valdes v. Faby Enters., Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Moreover, given the unrefuted testimony of Mrs. Klaue, genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved regarding whether the ap-pellee’s employees, whom the record demonstrates bore the sole responsibility for res-helving and a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pittman v. Volusia Cnty., 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)