H AND U FOODS, INC., D/B/A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT, APPELLANT,
v.
GALE ELLISON, 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.
McDonald's appeals the trial court's grant of a new trial in a premises liability case where a customer fell on a trash bag in the restaurant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury verdict for the defendant was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring nominal damages as a matter of law.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The jury verdict for McDonald's was properly supported by evidence showing either no breach of duty or no proximate cause, and the jury was not required to award nominal damages as a matter of law.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial based on a jury's failure to award nominal damages when the plaintiff sought only actual damages and the jury…
[2] A jury may find that a defendant was not negligent if there was no breach of duty or no proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries.
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“From the evidence, the jury could have found there was no negligence on the part of McDonald's because there was either (1) no breach of duty or (2) no proximate cause.”
Establishes the legal basis supporting the jury's verdict and negating the need for a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff fell in a McDonald's restaurant while attempting to step over an empty plastic trash bag lying in an aisle. The bag had been placed by an em…
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 Nominal Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Defendant, a McDonald’s Restaurant, appeals the granting of a new trial to the plaintiff/appellee. Plaintiff fell in the defendant’s restaurant while trying to step across an empty plastic trash bag which was lying in an aisle. The bag had been placed there by an employee who was changing the plastic trash liners at the time. Plaintiff noticed that the bag was present on the floor. She attempted to step across it, and in doing so, caught her foot in the bag and fell. The case was tried primarily on the theory that plaintiff’s fall aggravated a preexisting multiple sclerosis condition. Plaintiff sought substantial damages for her resulting condition. The jury found for the defendant, McDonald’s, concluding that there was no negligence on the part of defendant which caused damage to the plaintiff. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for new trial. In accordance with the requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f), the court stated the reasons for the new trial in its order. The order notes that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis condition was not due to or aggravated by her fall. However, the court concluded that McDonald’s was responsible, at least in part, for the plaintiff’s fall, and that the jury had to award plaintiff at least nominal damages.
The standard of review is whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a new trial. Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980), and Wackenhut Corporation v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978). This discretion is broad but it is not without bounds. We conclude that the trial court here did abuse its discretion and reverse the order granting new trial.
From the evidence, the jury could have found there was no negligence on the part of McDonald’s because there was either (1) no breach of duty or (2) no proximate cause. See Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Carson, 327 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert denied, 344 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1977). There was abundant medical evidence to support a finding that the fall did not cause or aggravate plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis. Further, this jury could have concluded that McDonald’s acted with reasonable care, and that the accident was 100% the fault of the plaintiff.
The primary reason for granting a new trial, as set out in the court’s order, was the jury’s failure to award at least some damages even if nominal. We reject this reason. Compensatory damages include both actual and nominal damages. In closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel sought only actual damages for the multiple sclerosis condition. Further, the jury was not instructed on nominal damages, and the trial court’s order faulting the jury for failing to award such damages was legally incorrect and an abuse of discretion.
The order granting new trial is reversed and the matter remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant and for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cnty. OF Volusia v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…con-demnee is estopped to complain that the jury erred by finding against him on that issue without finding nominal damages in response to a contradictory instruction. In the recent case of H & U Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant v. Ellison, 439 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), the grant of a new trial was reversed as an abuse of discretion by the trial court, a discretion which is broad but not without bounds. After pointing out that there was a sufficient factual basis from the evidence to support th…
-
Bluth v. Blake, 128 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…for a legal malpractice claim, the developers waived entitlement to nominal damages because they did not request a jury instruction regarding nominal damages or request nominal damages during their closing argument. See H & U Foods, Inc. v. Ellison, 439 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“The primary reason for granting a new trial, as set out in the court’s order, was the jury’s failure to award at least some damages even if nominal. We reject this reason.... In closing argument, plaintiffs counsel sought…
-
Wilder v. Long Phan Pham and Tu Nguy Pham, 450 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1983); Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980); Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); H & U Foods, Inc. v. Ellison, 439 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Florida East Coast Railway v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied mem., 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983). Affirmed in part; reversed in part. .In granting the new…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Laurenne A. Carson, 327 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)