PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN SWEET, 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.
Publix Super Markets appeals a judgment in favor of Helen Sweet, who sued for injuries related to a purse snatching on Publix's property. The court reverses and remands, finding that critical hearsay testimony about the timing of the assailant's presence was improperly admitted at trial.
The testimony was impermissible hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the assailant had been in the parking lot for a period of time. The hearsay statement was not admissible under any recognized hearsay exception, and therefore its admission was erroneous.
[1] Testimony offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is impermissible hearsay.
[2] A statement made by a declarant, other than while testifying at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constitutes hearsay.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
Court's application of the statutory definition of hearsay from Florida Statute § 90.801(1)(c)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Sweet's purse was snatched while she was walking on the sidewalk in front of a Publix store in Coral Gables. A woman customer told the store manag…
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 Truth Of The Matter Asserted cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant below, Publix Super Markets, Inc. [Publix], appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff below, Helen Sweet. We reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Ms. Sweet’s purse was snatched as she was walking on the sidewalk in front of the Publix on Monza Avenue in Coral Gables. Ms. Sweet brought an action against Publix alleging that Publix has a duty “to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to keep and maintain the store and its adjoining property in a condition reasonably safe for the use of such tenants” and that Publix breached this duty.
At trial, Ms. Sweet testified that a woman [hereinafter referred to as “the woman”] came up to her while she was talking to the store manager, Bob Barton. Ms. Sweet testified that the woman told Mr. Barton that she had noticed the assailant while she was shopping. Ms. Sweet’s testimony did not reveal whether the woman stated how much time had passed from the time she noticed the assailant in the parking lot to the time that Ms. Sweet’s purse was snatched. However, during Mr. Barton’s testimony, the plaintiff’s attorney asked Mr. Barton whether it is true that the woman told him in the presence of Ms. Sweet that she had noticed the man fifteen minutes prior to the attack. Mr. Barton responded that he does not remember that conversation. Publix contends that the testimony regarding what the woman said was impermissible hearsay. We agree.
“ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). We find that the testimony was admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted — that the assailant had been in the parking lot for a period of time. This testimony goes to the issue of whether Publix was on constructive notice that the assailant was in the parking lot prior to the attack. Additionally, contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, the hearsay statement is not admissible pursuant to any of the hearsay exceptions. See § 90.803, Fla.Stat. (1987).
In light of our disposition of this issue, we do not need to address Publix’s remaining point raised on appeal.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fidelia Alexander v. Bird Rd. Ranch & Stables, Inc., 599 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ues. The trial court erred in admitting an insurance investigator’s hearsay testimony as to the ranch owner’s eyewitness description of the accident. That testimony does not fall within any hearsay exception. See Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Sweet, 579 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Dr. Alexander presented witnesses who testified as to the owner’s statements that “[he] never should have put [Dr. Alexander] up on that horse.... [and that] these horses shouldn’t have been ridden.” An investigator for Bird Roa…