ELLEN K. ROACH, APPELLANT,
v.
MRS. JOHN (HELEN) RAUBAR, 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.
The court held that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case, and the jury could infer causation from the defective condition and the fall's location.
Plaintiff fell while ascending apartment steps. Photographs showed the top step was broken. Plaintiff did not explicitly state the broken step caused …
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 Landlord'S Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
Ellen K. Roach, the plaintiff below, brings this appeal from a final judgment entered upon a directed verdict for the defendant, Helen Raubar. The directed verdict was entered for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case. We reverse upon a holding that the evidence presented showed a prima facie case. See Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
The plaintiff testified that she was ascending the steps of an apartment house owned and operated by the defendant and that as she reached the top (third) step, she fell. Photographs admitted into evidence showed that the top step was badly broken and damaged with large chunks broken from the lip of the step. Plaintiff did not testify that the broken step caused her to fall. Presumably, for this reason, the trial court entered the directed verdict and the defendant here urges that the directed verdict was proper because to hold that the plaintiff fell because of the defective condition would be to place an inference upon an inference, relying upon Commercial Credit Corporation v. Varn, 108 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
We hold that the principle stated in the Commercial Credit Corporation case is not applicable here because the defective condition of the step was not a presumption but must be regarded as a fact from the photographic evidence and plaintiff’s testimony. Under the circumstances of this case, the jury would be entitled to find that the plaintiff’s fall was occasioned by the defective condition inasmuch as the evidence shows that the fall occurred at the time and place where the defective condition existed. Cf. Fletcher v. Petman Enterprises, Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
The final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wong v. Crown Equip. Corp. & Life Sys., Inc., 676 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (reversing defense summary judgment in unwitnessed drowning incident in which child was found dead in a waterway surrounded by an unreasonably low fence), pet. for review denied, 436 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1983); Roach v. Raubar, 362 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“Under the circumstances of this case, the jury would be entitled to find that the plaintiffs fall was occasioned by the defective condition inasmuch as the evidence shows that the fall occurred at the time and place where the de…
-
Jennaro v. Bonita-Fort Myers Corp., 752 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…te cause of the injury. See Sawyer v. Allied Int’l Holdings, Inc., 707 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Hervey, 650 So. 2d 644; Chelton, 525 So. 2d 972; Edwards v. Kings Point Hous. Corp., 351 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). See also Roach v. Raubar, 362 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reversing directed verdict in favor of defendant, court held that evidence of damaged stair step showed prima facie case even though plaintiff did not testify that broken step caused her fall). In this case, the Jennaros allege…
-
Christakis v. Tivoli Terrace, LLC, 181 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…e in disrepair. Although she could not testify as to exactly what made her fall, the- evidence presented by both the expert and the photos of the steps showed their damaged condition. Thus, this case is factually almost identical to Roach v. Raubar, 362 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There, the plaintiff also did not know why she fell, but photos showed that the step upon which she fell was damaged. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not building inference upon inference because the damage to th…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. Varn, 108 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Goff, 108 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Fletcher v. Petman Enters., Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Brookbank v. Mathieu, 152 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)