MINNIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed judgment in premises liability case, holding that assumption of risk is merged into contributory negligence, evidence of store cleanliness is relevant to notice, and inflammatory counsel remarks warrant reversal.
Assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence under Hoffman v. Jones principles, evidence of store cleanliness is relevant to prove actual or constructive notice of dangerous conditions, and inflammatory jury argument by counsel requires reversal.
[1] Assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence, and Hoffman v. …
[2] Evidence of a store's general cleanliness is relevant and admissible to establish the proprietor's actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinnie Williams brought a premises liability action against Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. for injuries allegedly caused by a dangerous condition in the groc…
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 Prejudicial Remarks By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment appealed is reversed upon a holding that (1) the affirmative defense of assumption of risk is merged into the defense of contributory negligence and the principles of Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973) shall apply, Kuehner v. Green, 436 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1983); Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1977); Gary v. Party Time Company, Inc., 434 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hylazewski v. Wet ’N Wild, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (Cowart, J., specially concurring); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Tommie v. La-Chance, 412 So. 2d 439, 440 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), (2) any fact relevant to prove a fact at issue is admissible unless its admissibility is precluded by some specific rule of exclusion and here, testimony as to the general cleanliness of the grocery store is relevant to the issue of appellee’s actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, Division of Corrections v. Wynn, 438 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Carter v. Rukab, 437 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) and cases cited at 436 So. 2d 1076, and (3) while attorneys are allowed wide latitude in jury argument, inflammatory or prejudicial remarks by counsel will require reversal. Wright v. Ford Millworks, Inc. v. Long, 412 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Erie Insurance Co. v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Thundereal Corp. v. Sterling, 368 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1979).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Albertson's, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…el supported his statement of belief in the witness with his license to practice law). Here, the remarks, although improper, were not highly prejudicial nor inflammatory and, thus, are not a proper basis to order a new trial. Williams v. Winn Dixie, 443 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Erie Insurance Co. v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Regan Insurance Agency v. Krause & Sons, Inc., 325 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As noted, the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection and gave a curativ…
-
Antonette Fazio and Richard Fazio v. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc., 473 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…onstructive notice, and 2) proving that appellee did not have reasonable inspections, did not take reasonable precautions to guard against foreseeable dangers and, therefore, was negligent in its maintenance. See Williams v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 443 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Jenkins v. Brackin, 171 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). We agree. Appellee submits that, in order to recover for slip and fall injuries, appellants have to show that appell…1 / 2
-
Holmes v. Redland Constr. Co., 557 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ccident, was properly admitted. This evidence was relevant because it tended to prove that Holmes’s presently claimed injuries resulted from a subsequent accident. See Brackin v. Boles, 452 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1984); Williams v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 443 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). On Holmes’s second point, that the trial court erred in failing to allow the deposition of Harrow to be read to the jury, we rule Holmes did not preserve this issue for review. The rule is well settled that when a party fails t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977)
- O'Connell v. Walt Disney World Co., 413 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Kuehner v. Green, 436 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1983)
- Anne E. Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Erie Ins. Co. & Margaret Borman v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Tommie v. LaCHANCE, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Hylazewski v. WET 'N Wild, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Wright & Ford Millworks, Inc. v. Long, 412 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Thundereal Corp. v. Sterling, 368 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)