GREENFIELD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICIA MERRITT, 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.
Patricia Merritt sued Greenfield Real Estate Investment Corporation for negligence after tripping over a concealed metal pipe on the defendant's property. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence because key facts—including whether the defendant owned the property where the pipe was located, installed it, and knew of its existence—were never proved.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. A plaintiff cannot build a prima facie case upon inferences, and the defendant has no duty to go forward with evidence until the plaintiff establishes each element of the cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence.
[1] A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence to avoid a directed verdict.
[2] A prima facie case cannot be built upon a piling of inferences upon inferences.
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 prima facie case may not be built upon inferences.”
Establishes the foundational legal principle that plaintiff must prove each element of negligence with evidence, not speculation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 26, 1973, Patricia Merritt was crossing a grassy area at N.W. 79th Street and 28th Avenue when she tripped over a concealed metal pipe, sustai…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict upon the ground that no actionable negligence by the defendant had been established. The court denied the motion, submitted the cause to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered thereon and this appeal followed.
Plaintiff appellee’s statement of the facts states the following:
The appellee, Patricia Merritt, was crossing a grassy area at N.W. 79th Street and 28th Avenue on June 26, 1973, when her left leg hit a concealed pipe which caused her to fall and injure herself.
The appellee suffered a laceration to her left knee which required fifteen sutures. Subsequent treatment of the knee required the wearing of braces and exercises. Almost three years after the accident, in March, 1976, a consulting physician found objective signs of injury related to the accident: atrophy of the left thigh and pain upon palpation.
At trial, appellee’s uncontroverted testimony showed that there was a sprinkler system in the area in question prior to its use as a parking lot. The sprinkler system was removed in approximately 1966. Appellant testified that it has owned the present parking lot (where the sprinkler system used to be) for approximately ten years.
The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent, as follows:
“6. That at the said time and place the Plaintiff tripped over a metal pipe that was protruding from the ground that had been hidden from view by an over-growth of grass.
“7. That the installation of said pipe was done in such a negligent manner as to make its presence a danger to anyone walking in the area.
“8. That the Defendant GREENFIELD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORP. had installed the said pipe and knew or should have known of its dangerous propensity.”
An examination of the record shows that the following were not proved: (1) The pipe was upon defendant’s property. (2) The defendant installed the pipe. (3) The pipe was a part of a sprinkler system. (4) The defendant removed or was responsible for the removal of the former sprinkler system. (5) The defendant knew of the existence of the pipe.
Plaintiff urges that the jury could have inferred that since the defendant had owned the property for about ten years, he could have removed the system and left the pipe as a part of the debris. This argument requires the piling of inferences upon an inference: first, that the pipe was a part of an old sprinkler system; second, that the defendant was responsible for the removal of the old sprinkler system; and third, that the pipe was a part of the debris left by the removal. A prima facie case may not be built upon inferences. See McCormick Shipping Corporation v. Warner, 129 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
The defendant has no duty to go forward with the evidence until the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case. As stated in Sharp v. Long, 283 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973),
* * * * * *
“No recitation of authority is necessary for the proposition that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of the evidence each element of his cause of action.”
The judgment must be reversed with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK Shipping Corp. v. Warner, 129 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Sharp v. Long, 283 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)