ROBERT WHITTEN AND JUDY WHITTEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FOREIGN INSURER, RAYMOND LINK AND KAREN LINK, 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.
The Whittens appeal a directed verdict granted in favor of the Links and State Farm after Robert Whitten fell on a toy car left on the floor of the Links' home during a barbecue. The court reversed, holding that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find negligence based on the Links' failure to remove hazardous toys from areas where guests were likely to walk.
The directed verdict was improper. Sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Links' failure to remove the small wheeled toys from the floor where people were likely to walk constituted negligence, and the comparative negligence issue also presented a jury question.
[1] A directed verdict in a negligence action is proper only if the plaintiff cannot recover under any reasonable view of the evidence.
[2] When reviewing an order granting a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff's case, an appellate court must consider the evidence in the light most…
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“When reviewing an order granting a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff's case, the appellate court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether no evidence exists upon which a jury could lawfully find for the plaintiff.”
Establishes the standard of review for directed verdicts on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Whittens attended a barbecue at the Links' home. Two young boys, including the Links' son, played with small toy cars on the dining area floor. Ro…
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 Duty To Supervise cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Robert and Judy Whitten appeal from a final judgment entered after the trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellees Raymond and Karen Link and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
Appellants and their young son attended a barbecue at the home of the Links, who also had a young son. The boys played together with some small toy cars on the floor in the dining area of appellees’ home. Appellant, Robert Whitten, stepped and fell on one of the toys, suffering personal injuries. Appellants filed suit against appellees and claimed negligence on the part of appellees because they failed to warn appellant of the presence of the toys on the premises, failed to prevent and stop their minor child from playing with the toys, failed to clean up or eliminate the existence of the toys and otherwise failed to supervise and control or adequately control the toy playing of their minor child. At trial, appellants presented evidence which established that appellees had notice that the children were playing with the cars in the dining area, that the cars belonged to appel-lees’ son, that appellees knew that their son played with the cars in the area of the accident and that appellant fell as a result of stepping on one of the toys. At the conclusion of appellants’ case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the appellees.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellees and argue that the record contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could lawfully find in their favor. When reviewing an order granting a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the appellate court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether no evidence exists upon which a jury could lawfully find for the plaintiff. Jones v. City of Hialeah, 368 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 346 (Fla.1979). Appellants presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that appellees’ failure to remove the small wheeled toys from the floor where people were likely to walk constituted negligence. Appellant’s comparative negligence presents a separate jury question.
If conflicting reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence presented, negligence and causation are questions of fact for the jury. A directed verdict in a negligence action would only be proper if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. Daniels v. Weiss, 385 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The record presents a question of fact for the jury. Therefore, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seymour Singer v. Florentino Borbua, 497 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…was ample evidence that the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff as an invitee and reject the defendants’ arguments to the contrary. See Handel v. Rudnick, 78 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla.1955); Whitten v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 430 So. 2d 528, 529-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cleaver v. Dade County, 272 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the trial court did not commit error, as urged, in failing to enter judgment for the defendants by denying defense motions for a directed verdi…
-
Marr v. State, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…till retains authority in a proper case to give such instruction if he or she considers it appropriate due to the particular facts involved. Williams v. State, 437 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1983); Rembert v. State, 445 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1984); Ruzicka v. State, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983). The discretion vested in a trial judge to instruct the jury on the relevant law is reflected also in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.985, pertaining to standard jury instructions, al…
-
Pritchett v. Jacksonville Auction, Inc., 449 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…y v. Kight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Moreover, a directed verdict in a negligence action should only be entered if the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonable view of the evidence. Whitten v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 430 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). This rule is particularly important in cases where, as here, the doctrine of comparative negligence applies. See Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 422 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Reversed and remanded for new…
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
- Odie Bell Daniels v. Malcolm H. Weiss, M.D., 385 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Jones v. City OF Hialeah, 368 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)