FINCHER INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LESLIE SCOTT, 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.
Fincher Investigative Agency appeals an order granting a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of defendant, based on improper juror contact by a bailiff. The appellate court affirms the new trial order and rejects Fincher's argument that directed verdicts should have been granted, holding that a security company can be liable for negligent failure to properly train and equip its guards.
The trial court properly granted a new trial based on the bailiff's unauthorized communications with the jury. The trial court also properly denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict, as the evidence presented conflicting facts on all major points that a jury could reasonably resolve in favor of the plaintiff.
[1] A new trial may be granted based on unauthorized communications between court personnel and the jury.
[2] When reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 was clearly correct in ordering a new trial upon the basis of the bailiffs unauthorized communications with the jury.”
Establishes that improper juror contact is grounds for a new trial and the trial court's order was proper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeslie Scott, a bagboy at a Winn-Dixie store in Miami, was shot during a robbery. Fincher Investigative Agency provided an armed security guard at the…
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 Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge.
The appellant, Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc., was the defendant in a trial which resulted in a jury verdict and judgment for the defendant. Thereafter, the trial judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground of improper juror contact. Fincher appeals the order granting the new trial, and urges first that the court erred in granting a new trial and second that the court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motions for a directed verdict.1 The trial judge was clearly correct in ordering a new trial upon the basis of the bailiffs unauthorized communications with the jury. See Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1977); Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1966); Holzapfel v. State, 120 So. 2d 195 (Fla.3d DCA 1960), cert. denied 125 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1960). Initially both plaintiff and defendant realized this and each moved for a mistrial upon discovery of the intrusion upon the jury.
A closer question is presented upon Fincher’s point claiming error upon the trial court’s denial of its motions for directed verdict. In reviewing the evidence to determine if a directed verdict should have been granted, we must review the record in the light most favorable to the party moved against.2 We must disregard conflicting evidence and preserve for the jury every reasonable conclusion that could be reached from the evidence for the party moved against. The evidence in this case is in conflict on every major point. The record reviewed in the light above stated supports the trial court’s action in denying the defendant’s motions for a directed verdict.
A brief outline of the evidence for the plaintiff will be sufficient to show the basis for our holding. Scott was employed as a bagboy in a Winn-Dixie grocery store in Miami. Fincher Investigative Agency provided an armed security guard at the store. Scott was shot during a robbery of the store. A week prior to the robbery, a neighborhood “character” called “Granny” told the store manager that she had overheard three black males talking about robbing the store.3 The guard was informed and told to be on his toes. The guard understood that a part of his function was to act as a deterrent to robbery. Fincher gave the guard, who was on duty when the robbery occurred, no training in the use of the firearm that it gave him or in what to do should a situation such as the robbery arise.
Under the facts stated, it could not be found that the negligence of Fincher was the sole cause of Scott’s injury. However, there is no basis for a finding by the court that a jury could not find negligence on Fincher’s part and that such negligence contributed to Scott’s injury.
In Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1976) the Supreme Court held that a burglar alarm company under contract to monitor an alarm system could be liable in negligence for its failure to inform the police of a trouble signal it received. Pitts v. Metropolitan Dade County, 374 So. 2d 996 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) held that a security service whose function it was to patrol the Jackson Memorial Hospital parking complex could be held liable to a plaintiff assaulted in the complex for a negligent failure to properly perform that duty. We conclude, therefore, that no error has been shown upon the court’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant-appellant.
Affirmed.
. Appeals taken from orders granting new trials should, to the extent possible, be treated as appeals from final judgments. Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976); Florida Appellate Rule 9.130(a)(4). The appellate courts of this state have the authority to deal with appellate issues other than those stated as the basis for orders granting new trials. Royal Castle Systems, Inc. v. Fields, 354 So. 2d 947 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
. Cohn v. Surfside Plaza Hotel, 377 So. 2d 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Packer v. Winston Towers One Hundred Association, Inc., 377 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
. The police, however, were not told about the planned robbery.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hack v. The Est. OF Dorothy T. Helling, 811 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…r v. City of Gainesville, 579 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). . Natoel v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ltd., 657 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Texaco, Inc. v. Giltak Corp., 492 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981); Allen v. Dutton’s Estate, 394 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981). . It is established in Florida that if a substantial beneficiary under a will occupies a co…
-
Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…dict for the defendants did not lie in this case. See, e.g., Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983); Medina v. 187th Street Apartments, Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981); Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Doll v. Robbins, 303 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1975). Second, the grounds relie…
-
Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., 528 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. 4th DCA 1970); Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. dismissed, 235 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1970); Wometco Theatres Corp. v. Rath, 123 So,2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). But see Fincher Investigative Agency, Inc. v. Scott, 394 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1981); Cooper. Accordingly, I would affirm dismissal of the negligence count. For these reasons, I would reverse as to Count II, and affirm as to Count I. . The clause in question here provides: L…
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 (11 total)
- Donnie Lee Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977)
- Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1976)
- Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)
- Coral WAY Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Humerto Irene Picon & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1966)
- Holzapfel v. State, 120 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Pitts v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 374 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Packer v. Winston Towers ONE Hundred Ass'n, Inc., 377 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Farrell v. State, 125 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1960)
- Schneble v. State, 125 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1960)
- Royal Castle Sys., Inc. v. Fields, 354 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)