WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMEN JOHSTONEAUX AND R. B. JOHSTONEAUX, APPELLEES
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 Florida appellate court affirmed a jury verdict against Winn-Dixie supermarket for failing to provide security to protect a customer from criminal assault in a high-crime area. The court held that evidence of prior similar criminal activity in the vicinity established foreseeability, making the question of whether reasonable care required additional security measures a jury question rather than one for directed verdict.
The court held that Winn-Dixie was not entitled to a directed verdict because evidence of prior similar criminal activity in the vicinity established foreseeability, making the question of whether reasonable care required additional security measures a jury question. The jury verdict for the plaintiffs was therefore proper.
[1] A business owes a duty of reasonable care to its invitees to protect them from foreseeable criminal assaults.
[2] Evidence of a history of similar criminal occurrences in the vicinity can establish the foreseeability of future criminal assaults.
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“Because of the extensive evidence concerning the immediate past history of many similar occurrences in the vicinity, and thus of their future foreseeability, we reject Winn-Dixie's contention that it was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor below.”
Establishes the core holding that foreseeability based on prior similar crimes makes security adequacy a jury question
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Johstoneaux was robbed and seriously injured by an unknown assailant as she entered a Winn-Dixie supermarket from a common parking lot in a high-…
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.
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Mrs. Johstoneaux was robbed and seriously injured by an unknown assailant as she was entering a Winn-Dixie supermarket1 from the common parking lot of the shopping center where it was located in a “high crime” area of North Miami.2 She and her husband won a jury verdict and judgment against Winn-Dixie on the theory that it had breached the duty of reasonable care it owes its invitees by failing to provide a guard 3 or other security to protect her from such criminal assaults. Because of the extensive evidence concerning the immediate past history of many similar occurrences in the vicinity, and thus of their future foreseeability, we reject Winn-Dix-ie’s contention that it was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor below. Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pitts v. Metropolitan Dade County, 374 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).4
Affirmed.
HENDRY, J., dissents.
. There is no question of the defendant’s duty at the location where the injury took place. See, Shields v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., 106 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), cert. denied, 109 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1959).
. It was described as such by a policeman who patrolled the locality.
.Although the store had a guard on duty during the evening hours, the incident in question occurred at around 11:00 a. m. when none was present. It was clearly a jury question as to whether reasonable care required that the precautions sometimes taken, and thus impliedly acknowledged as necessary by the store, should have always been in effect. See, Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259, 1263-64, n.8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review den., 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1981); Holley v. Mt Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
. We have not implied either in the cited cases or in this one that when criminal activity is foreseeable it is invariably a jury question as to whether the duty of reasonable care has been discharged. In the case of a mom-and-pop store with one or two employees, for example, it might be unreasonable as a matter of law to require that a full-time guard be posted. In contrast, however, the present defendant and situation, see note 3, supra, bring the case within the field of purely jury competence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Virgilio Medina and Digna Medina v. 187TH St. Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ith respect to the duty of the landowner, the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to grant the plaintiff a new trial. . Nothing we have said in this opinion should be construed as contradicting Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla.3d DCA 1981) at n. 4 where this court [*487] stated that foreseeability is not invariably a jury question. While there may be instances in which as a matter of law the duty of care has been discharged, this case does not fall within that catego…
-
The Green Cos. v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…v. Robbins, - So. 2d - (Fla.1983) (Case Nos. 61,165 & 61,166, opinion filed March 31, 1983) [8 FLW 134]; Ten Associates v. McCutchen, 398 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1981). This conclusion does not, in our opinion, depart from the holding in Relye a v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), heavily-relied upon by the defendants. The Relyea court pointed ou…
-
Salerno v. Hart Fin. Corp., 521 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Palumbo v. Lil General Stores Corp., 453 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We recognize that the physical layout of this particular mobile home park presents a more difficult security situation than a motel, hotel, or tightly secured condominium complex. However, whether ap-pellee measured up to the du…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Shields v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 106 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Pitts v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 374 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Pinero v. De la Concha, 109 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1959)
- Lulu Reddick v. State, 109 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1959)