AUGUSTIN FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI JAI-ALAI, INC. AND ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Fernandez prevailed on a negligence claim against Miami Jai-Alai for inadequate security that resulted in his assault on the defendant's parking lot. The trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendants post-verdict, and the appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury verdict.
The trial court erred in entering a directed verdict for the defendants and granting a new trial because there was a conflict in the evidence that should have been submitted to the jury, and the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of negligence. The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury verdict.
[1] A directed verdict for a defendant is improper when there is conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's negligence in training, deploying, or supervising security sta…
[2] Evidence of prior crimes of violence committed on a defendant's business premises is admissible in a negligence claim brought by an injured business invitee.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“a directed verdict for the defendants did not lie in this case”
Establishes that when there is conflicting evidence on material issues, a directed verdict is improper and the case must go to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Fernandez was assaulted on the parking lot of Miami Jai-Alai's premises. Officer Juan Fernandez testified that crimes of violence had occurr…
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 Business Invitee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in accord with the jury verdict returned below in his favor. The trial court’s post-verdict orders directing a verdict in favor of the defendants herein or in the alternative granting a new trial were erroneously entered and are hereby set aside.
First, the plaintiff’s negligence claim, see Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), was properly submitted to the jury for consideration. There was a conflict in the evidence at trial as to whether prior crimes of violence had been committed on the defendant’s premises. In particular, the testimony of Officer Juan Fernandez indicates that such crimes had occurred with some frequency on the defendant’s business premise parking lots, and that, accordingly, a full security staff had been employed to protect the defendant’s business invitees.
Moreover, there is a conflict in the evidence at trial as to whether the defendant negligently trained, deployed, and supervised its security staff to protect its business invitees in the parking lot where the plaintiff was assaulted. This being so, the authorities are clear that a directed verdict 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 relied on for the new trial order have no merit.
The trial court properly admitted evidence concerning crimes having been committed in the immediate vicinity of the defendant’s business premises; Green Companies v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1981); Compare Admiral’s Port Condominium Ass’n v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983) (evidence of crimes occurring “substantial distances” away from business premises inadmissible); moreover, the defendants, not the plaintiff, adduced the major portion of this evidence, in any event, and should not, therefore, be heard to complain of its admission. City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980).
The trial court’s instructions to the jury were perfectly proper. Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sabatelli v. Omni International Hotels, Inc., 379 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of liability against the defendants on the negligence claim brought below. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, supra; Green Companies, Inc. v. Divincenzo, supra; Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…Florida case law clearly indicates that questions of foreseeability and, more specifically, adequate security and safety measures, are questions of fact for a jury. Hall, 458 So. 2d at 762; Allen 438 So. 2d at 357; Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding in part that conflicts in the evidence at trial as to whether prior crimes of violence had been committed on defendant’s premises and as to whether defendant negligently trained, deployed, and supervised its security staf…
-
Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), appeal after remand, 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The landowner’s duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises. Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st D…
-
Salerno v. Hart Fin. Corp., 521 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…uard’s activities and the occurrence of prior similar criminal activity. Nonetheless, foreseeability and causation are classically jury questions. Orlando 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 prese…
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 (17 total)
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Sparks v. Ober, 192 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Virgilio Medina and Digna Medina v. 187TH St. Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Admiral's Port Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- The Green Cos. v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)