WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ONEZ B. JENKINS, 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.
Wal-Mart appeals a negligence judgment based on a slip-and-fall injury, challenging the trial court's admission of hearsay testimony from an unidentified bystander. The appellate court reversed, finding that the spontaneous statement lacked sufficient trustworthiness under Florida evidence law because the declarant was never identified and there was no evidence the declarant had actually observed the hazardous condition.
The trial court erred in admitting the spontaneous statement because it was made under circumstances indicating a lack of trustworthiness. A statement by an unidentified and never-located bystander, with no evidence the declarant was even present 15 minutes before the fall or observed the substance at any time, fails the trustworthiness requirement of the spontaneous statement exception.
[1] A statement by an unidentified bystander is inadmissible as a spontaneous statement if circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
[2] The admissibility of a spontaneous statement made by an unidentified bystander requires a weighing of corroborating evidence and other factors to determine reliability.
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“A spontaneous statement is inadmissible if 'made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.'”
Establishes the legal standard for determining trustworthiness of spontaneous statements under Florida evidence law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOnez Jenkins slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a Wal-Mart store in Orange City. Within seconds of falling, Jenkins heard an unid…
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 Constructive Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeals a final judgment in favor of Onez B. Jenkins. Jenkins sued Wal-Mart for negligence alleging that she slipped and fell in its Orange City store as a result of a foreign substance on the floor. Her cause of action depended upon her self-serving testimony that, within seconds of her falling, a number of people gathered around her and she heard an unidentified voice, which she thought to be female, say, “This should have been mopped up 15 minutes ago.” It was on the basis of this quoted statement that Jenkins attributed to Wal-Mart constructive notice of the substance on the floor. See Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1973). Jenkins argued that the hearsay statement was admissible under section 90.803(1), Florida Statutes (1997) which reads:
(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.— A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
The statement.of the declarant, who was never identified or located, was admitted by the trial court as a spontaneous statement. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. We find the trial court erred in admitting the statement, and reverse the judgment.
A spontaneous statement is inadmissible if “made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.” The fact that the statement at issue here was made by an unidentified bystander raises the question of reliability. Professor Ehrhardt states, “The drafters [of the evidence code] were particularly concerned with statements by unidentified bystanders. The court should weigh any corroborating evidence together with all other factors in making this determination.” Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.1 (1999 Edition). There was no evidence to establish that the phantom declarant was even in the store 15 minutes before the fall in order to “perceive the event,” nor was there evidence that the declarant actually observed the substance on the floor at any time prior to the fall. Indeed, the allowance of this type of nebulous evidence, which cannot be effectively challenged, is an open invitation to fraud.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COBB, HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008)…entified bystanders. The court should weigh any corroborating evidence together with all other factors in making this determination.” Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, supra, § 803.1, at 843 (footnote omitted); see, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Jenkins, 739 So. 2d 171, 171-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Thus, it appears that Florida has adopted the spontaneous statement exception as a separate and distinct exception to the hearsay rule just as it was adopted by the federal rules under the present sense impression excep…
-
State v. Gerry (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)…entified bystanders. The court should weigh any corroborating evidence together with all other factors in making this determination. Deparvine, 995 So. 2d at 368. (Emphasis added). Deparvine also cited favorably to Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Jenkins, 739 So. 2d 171, 171–72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In Wal-Mart, the purported statement of an unidentified shopper about a spill on the store’s floor should not have been admitted in the absence of any evidence that this person had first-hand knowledge of the condition a…
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973)