ANNY SEIGEL, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
v.
MT. SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A widow appealed a directed verdict granted to Mt. Sinai Hospital after she fell on a wet bathroom floor while a patient. The court reversed, holding that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict on the ground of contributory negligence as a matter of law, as the question of plaintiff's reasonable care should have been submitted to the jury.
Yes. The trial court erred in directing a verdict based on contributory negligence as a matter of law. The question of whether plaintiff exercised reasonable care for her own safety was a factual question that should have been submitted to the jury.
[1] A directed verdict for the defendant is improper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a question of fact for the jury.
[2] Whether a plaintiff exercised reasonable care for their own safety is generally a question for the jury, not a matter of law.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial judge erred in holding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Whether or not plaintiff exercised reasonable care for her own safety was a question which should have been left for the jury to decide”
The core holding that contributory negligence is ordinarily a jury question and should not be decided as a matter of law on a directed verdict
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, a hospital patient, had previously used the bathroom. She then observed a hospital employee carrying a bed pan of liquid into the bathroom …
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 Damages For Injuries cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-plaintiff seeks reversal of a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of the appellee-de-fendant in an action wherein the appellee was sued for damages resulting from injuries sustained by appellant when she fell in the bathroom of appellee while she was there as a patient.
The point to be determined by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case on the ground that the evidence showed that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The evidence as it appears from the record is that the plaintiff had used the bathroom prior to her fall. After leaving the bathroom she observed a woman employee of the hospital entering the bathroom carrying a bed pan filled with liquid which was emptied into the toilet. Plaintiff observed the employee coming out of the bathroom with the bed pan hanging down and dropping liquid on the floor from the bathroom into the bedroom. The employee then began to give plaintiff’s roommate a massage. Whereupon plaintiff left the room for a period of about one hour and forty-five minutes. Upon returning, she walked into the bathroom and fell. She thereupon discovered that the spot where she fell was wet.
We have carefully examined the evidence adduced at trial and have concluded that the trial judge erred in holding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Whether or not plaintiff exercised reasonable care for her own safety was a question which should have been left for the jury to decide. Our review of the judgment has been in the light of the well established rule that requires the court, in considering the propriety of a directed verdict for the defendant, to evaluate the evidence offered in the cause in the light most favorablé to the plaintiff, and every intendment deductible from the evidence must be indulged in plaintiff’s favor. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 355; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320; Franklin v. Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 730.
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seymour Singer v. Florentino Borbua, 497 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ng on such a motion. Southeastern Fire Insurance Co. v. King’s Way Mortgage Co., 481 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See Tiny’s Liquors, Inc. v. Davis, 353. So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Seigel v. Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc., 250 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). Moreover, we agree with the plaintiff that, aside from this disputed evidence, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence presented below from which the jury could conclude that the plaintiff was an invited guest on the sub…
-
Balart v. Michel's Kartway, Inc., 364 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…r every reasonable in-tendment deducible from the evidence. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Corp., 62 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1952); Brightwell v. Beem, 90 So. 2d 320, 322 (Fla.1956); Guerriero v. Adams, supra; Seigel v. Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc., 250 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d [*92] DCA 1971); Chimeno v. Fontainebleau Corp., 251 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Because of the doctrine of comparative negligence, the direction of a verdict for defendants at the close of the plaintiffs’ case necessarily was predicate…
-
Levine v. Frank, 311 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ry might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. Darr v. Aglin, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 62. The evidence must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Seigel v. Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 250 So. 2d 332. In considering a defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial judge is “ . . . required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, who is entitled to all reasonable inferences…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brightwell v. Melville J. Beem and Glea Beem, 90 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956)
- Rodi v. Fla. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 62 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1952)
- Emmett Franklin v. Dade Cnty., 230 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)