REINALDO VALDES, APPELLANT,
v.
FABY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A AMERICAN SUPERMARKET, 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.
The court held that the question of the store's negligence in stacking beer was for the jury, and the plaintiff should not have been found comparatively negligent.
Plaintiff was injured when boxes of beer stacked on top of a cooler fell on him in the defendant's grocery store. The jury found the defendant neglige…
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 Comparative Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Valdes appeals a final judgment in favor of Faby Enterprises, Inc. (Faby) in a negligence action. We reverse.
On September 13, 1983, Valdes entered Faby’s grocery store. He went to the refrigerated beer cooler and opened it. As he did so, some boxes of beer stacked on top of the cooler fell. Valdes was struck by the boxes, knocked into a wine display and injured.
The jury returned a verdict of $260,000 finding Faby 30% negligent and Valdes 70% comparatively negligent. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Faby on its motion for directed verdict and denied Valdes’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of comparative 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.1957); Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Banks, 287 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
The refusal to direct a verdict for Valdes on the comparative negligence issue was also error because there was no evidence of any negligent conduct on his part and, therefore, the issue should not have been submitted to the jury. Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the cause is reversed with di reetions to enter judgment for Valdes for the full amount of damages.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…39, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The law is clear that where a plaintiff is free of fault, he may move for a directed verdict on the issue of comparative negligence in addition to the issue of the defendant’s liability. See Valdes v. Faby Enters., Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Where there is no evidence tending to prove a plaintiffs comparative negligence, the issue should be taken from the jury. See Florida Ass’n of Workers for the Blind, Inc. v. Guillaume, 618 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Regardin…
-
Burton v. Powell, 547 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ry by way of a directed verdict on the issue of liability). A plaintiff is also at liberty to move for a directed verdict on the issue of comparative negligence in addition to the issue of the defendant’s liability. Valdes v. Faby Enterprises, Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1986). . We observe, however, that a trial jury duly constituted is an adjunct of the "judicial department” within the terms of this constitutional prohibition of the exercise by the legislative…
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 596 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…gligence in placing and maintaining the machine on top of the stack of boards, thereby giving rise to its 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…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Myron M. Navison v. Winn & Lovett Tampa, Inc., 92 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1957)
- Luerain Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Zuccaro v. Zuccaro, 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Blanche Cartter Banks, 287 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)