COASTAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
VERA F. TRAINOR AND VERA F. TRAINOR, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GORDON P. TRAINOR, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT; VERA F. TRAINOR, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. COASTAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS ASSOCIATION, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on liability in a premises liability case involving a condominium resident injured by a fall in an unsafe elevator. The court found the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that the plaintiff had no legal duty to report the unsafe condition, thereby improperly removing evidence of the plaintiff's comparative negligence from jury consideration.
The trial court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiff had no legal duty to report the unsafe condition, as this improperly excluded evidence relevant to comparative negligence from jury consideration. While the plaintiff had no special duty as a condominium member to report the condition, the jury should have been able to consider her failure to do so in assessing comparative negligence under standard instructions. The trial court also erred in striking the loss of consortium award, which was supported by sufficient evidence.
[1] A trial court errs by instructing the jury that a plaintiff has no legal duty to report an unsafe condition of which the plaintiff is aware.
[2] A plaintiff's awareness of an unsafe condition and failure to report it may be considered by the jury in determining comparative negligence.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the jury had a right to consider evidence of her failure to do so in determining the comparative negligence issue”
Establishes that evidence of plaintiff's failure to report unsafe condition was admissible and relevant to comparative negligence despite no legal duty to report
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVera F. Trainor fell in an unsafe elevator at Coastal Towers Condominium Apartments. Trainor was aware of the unsafe condition well in advance of her …
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 Moral Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of liability. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in its instructions and comments to the jury concerning the issue of comparative negligence.
In particular we believe the trial court erred in telling the jury that the plaintiff-appellee, Vera F. Trainor, had no legal duty to report the unsafe condition of an elevator within which she subsequently fell, and in subsequently reading to the jury definitions of “moral obligation” and “legal cause” from a legal dictionary. The combined effect of the trial court’s actions was to remove from the jury’s consideration any evidence of the plaintiff’s failure to protect herself by reporting the condition which she concededly was aware of well in advance of her fall. We do not mean to imply that the trial court should have instructed the jury that plaintiff had a legal duty to report the unsafe condition. However, we believe the jury had a right to consider evidence of her failure to do so in determining the comparative negligence issue.
We disagree with appellant’s contention that the plaintiff had a special legal duty, as a result of her membership in the condominium association or her ownership of a part of the common areas, to report the unsafe condition to the association. In our view the plaintiff had the same duty as anyone else using the elevator, namely to look out for herself in a reasonable manner. See Hemispheres Condominium Association, Inc. v. Corbin, 357 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and Manassa v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, 332 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The standard instructions on comparative negligence were sufficient to cover this issue. The error of the trial court here was in suggesting to the jury that while the plaintiff may have had a moral duty to report* the unsafe condition, she had no legal duty to do so.
We also reverse on the cross appeal and hold that there is sufficient evidence on the loss of consortium claim to support the jury’s award. The trial court erred in striking that award after trial. That damage award will, of course, be contingent upon the outcome of the retrial on liability.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FEDER, RICHARD YALE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griefer v. DiPIETRO, 625 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ue we found reversible did not affect the calculation of damages by the jury nor did it inflame the jury. Thus, in line with Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Griffin, 566 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Coastal Towers Condominium Ass’n v. Trainer, 509 So. 2d 351 (Fla 4th DCA 1987); Massey v. Netschke, 504 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we now hold that a reversal for a new trial on damages is not appropriate where the error complained of affects only the issues of liability. We have also reexamined the…
Authorities Cited
- Manassa v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. & Colonial Point of Jacksonville, Inc., 332 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hemispheres Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Corbin, 357 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)