LEONORA WILKES AND WILLIAM WILKES, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA SUPERMARKETS, INC., D/B/A PANTRY PRIDE, 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.
This dissenting opinion argues that a judgment should not be overturned due to a delay between trial and rendition, nor because the judge utilized an attorney-prepared judgment, as these practices are common and supported by substantial evidence in the record.
A judgment should not be automatically invalidated due to a delay between trial and rendition, nor because the trial judge used an attorney-prepared judgment, especially when there is substantial evidence to support the judgment and the appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated grounds for reversal.
[1] Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to raise a factual question regarding a store's constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its floor.
[2] Evidence of the nature of a substance on the floor, the frequency of similar incidents, and the absence of evidence suggesting external origin or negligent cleanup can su…
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 intelligenceThe parties filed for dissolution in January 1990, with a trial in September 1990. The judgment was signed in December 1990 and filed in January 1991,…
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 Factual Question For Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A directed verdict should not have been entered at the end of the plaintiff’s case in this slip and fall action because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to raise a factual question as to whether the appellee had constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor of its store. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (the condition of the floor, the nature of the substance on the floor, and surrounding circumstances, may be sufficient to support an inference by the jury that a condition existed long enough for store employees to know of the condition); Zayre Cory. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (the existence of a substance with darkened grocery cart wheel tracks running through it, along with the store’s policy on inspections, raised factual question on constructive notice).
The evidence in this case showed that: (1) the plaintiff’s fall was caused by broken glass; (2) the brown glass was from a food product sold by the store; (3) the glass was not brought in from outside the store; (4) similar bottle-breaking incidents occur twice daily in the store; and (5) there was an absence of liquid on the floor, from which it might be inferred that there was a negligent clean-up following an earlier breakage.
“If the evidence is conflicting, or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from them to be passed upon by the judge as a question of law.” Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (citing Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1968)).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1968)
- Salem Dandashi and Mansham Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dorothea Benton, 576 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)