RAYMOND L. HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
DON MEALEY CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL., 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 personal injury plaintiff appeals the trial court's directed verdict in favor of a car dealership after he tripped and fell on improperly installed carpet in the defendant's parts department. The appellate court reverses, holding that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find the defendant created and maintained a dangerous condition on its premises.
The directed verdict was improper because the record contained sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant created and maintained a dangerous condition on its business premises in breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees, and that this condition proximately caused or contributed to plaintiff's injury. The case should have been submitted to the jury.
[1] A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict.
[2] Evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party when considering a motion for directed verdict.
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“A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for when a directed verdict is appropriate; the defendant must show the record conclusively lacks evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Holmes tripped and fell while entering defendant's parts department from the parking lot. Evidence showed that carpet had been installed by …
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The final judgment for defendant in this personal injury action is reversed because we conclude that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict. Ferber v. Orange Blossom Center, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party to the motion for directed verdict; the plaintiff/appellant here. Otey v. Florida Power and Light Company, 400 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982).
Plaintiff tripped and fell as he entered from defendant’s parking lot into defendant’s parts department. There was evidence presented that he caught his toe on the unfinished edge of carpet that wrapped over the edge of a step leading into this entrance, but which carpet did not go down the full height of the step riser. There was also ’ testimony that the carpet had been installed by one of defendant’s employees, who had been told by his superior to wrap the carpet over the edge of the step but not to bring it all the way down. There was expert testimony presented that installing carpet in this manner was dangerous because it created a potential “trip area.”
There was thus sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the defendant created and maintained a dangerous condition on its business premises thus breaching its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for its invitees, Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and that the maintenance of that condition proximately caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injury. The case should not have been taken from the jury.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
COBB, C.J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
COWART, Judge,
dissenting:
The edge of the carpet in question had been safely glued to the vertical rise of the step for a long period of time before the accident in this case. The trial judge granted a directed verdict because he correctly noted that the plaintiff presented no evidence that the carpet had become unglued and loose and dangerous at any time before the occurrence of this particular accident or that the defendants knew of such a dangerous and existing condition or that such a condition had existed for such a period of time that the jury could reasonably infer that the defendants violated a duty to learn of it. I would, therefore, affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Holmes v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Ferber v. Orange Blossom Center, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Otey v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982); Rivera v. Randle Eastern Ambulance Ser…
-
Sears v. McKENZIE, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Holmes v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Guy v. Eight, 431 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In the instant case, there was some evidence presented by the plaintiff to support the jury verdict on theories of strict liability and negligence, which, if believed by the jur…
-
Tinwood N.V. v. SUN Banks, Inc., 570 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ferences therefrom fail to prove a prima facie case in support of the cause(s) of action pleaded. Golden v. Morris, 55 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1951); Hart- [*959] nett v. Fowler, 94 So. 2d 724 (Fla.1957). See generally, Holmes v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Williams v. Meyer, 474 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Jennings v. Ray, 484 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Thus the broad question on this appeal is whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Tinwood, the corp…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pittman v. Volusia Cnty., 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Ferber v. Orange Blossom Ctr., Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Otey v. Fla. Power & Light Co. & Canaveral Port Auth., 400 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)