MARY P. LORD AND CAROL LORD, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
J.B. IVEY & COMPANY AND OTIS ELEVATOR CO., 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 Lords appealed a jury verdict dismissing their personal injury claim arising from an escalator malfunction at a department store. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court improperly denied a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction by applying an incorrect legal standard.
The trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying the res ipsa loquitur instruction. Evidence of specific negligence regarding stopping distance does not preclude the instruction, and evidence of potential causes that does not fully explain the occurrence does not warrant denial of the instruction.
[1] A res ipsa loquitur instruction is permissible even when some evidence of specific negligence exists, as long as the evidence does not provide a full and complete explana…
[2] The presence of evidence of specific negligence does not automatically preclude the giving of a res ipsa loquitur instruction if that evidence does not fully explain the…
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“there need not be a complete absence of direct proof in order to permit the giving of the instruction”
Establishes the correct legal standard for res ipsa loquitur instructions, rejecting the trial court's interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lords were injured when an escalator maintained by Otis Elevator Company and located in J.B. Ivey & Company's department store stopped suddenly. T…
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 Specific Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Lords appeal a final judgment entered on an adverse jury verdict in their action for personal injuries sustained when an escalator, maintained by Otis Elevator Company and located in Ivey’s department store, stopped suddenly. They raise four points on appeal.
The first point contends that the trial court erred in declining to give, at plaintiffs’ request, Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.6 on res ipsa loquitur. Appellee Otis states that the court denied the requested instruction on the premise that “[i]f there is any evidence of specific negligence, then that doctrine would not come into play” (emphasis added). Appellees contend that the instruction was properly rejected because plaintiffs presented sufficient direct evidence of negligence to render such an instruction improper and unnecessary, relying primarily on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla.1978).
We conclude, however, that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying the instruction because there need not be a complete absence of direct proof in order to permit the giving of the instruction.
We hold that the evidence of specific negligence in respect to the stopping distance of the escalator did not deprive plaintiffs of the res ipsa inferences with respect to further negligence relating to the cause of the sudden stop of the escalator, and that the evidence of potential causes of a sudden stop was not sufficiently extensive to furnish a full and complete explanation of the occurrence and thus warrant denial of the requested instruction. E.g., Marrero v. Goldsmith, 486 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1986); Ferguson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 408 So. 2d 659 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Street, 327 So. 2d 113 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
We find no merit in the remaining three points raised by appellants. The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for Ivey’s on the claim of direct negligence by that defendant because the record contains no evidence to support that count of the complaint. Nor, in view of the deficiencies in the predicate laid by plaintiffs in their attempt to establish the relevance of such other accidents, did the court err in refusing to admit the proffered evidence of other accidents. Finally, plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict in their favor was completely unsupported by the record, and it was not error for the trial court to deny it.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
SHIVERS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Otis Elevator Co. v. Lelia Chambliss and Avon Chambliss, 511 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…plicability of res ipsa loqui-tur to this case. Id. at 263. See also Bardy v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 443 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983); Valens v. Otis Elevator Company, 482 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986); compare Lord v. J.B. Ivey & Company, 499 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (held that principle that plaintiff may not rely upon res ipsa where plaintiff introduces evidence of specific acts of negligence not applicable where the sole evidence of purported negligence presented by plaintiff related to th…
-
Roffman v. Sears, 522 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…art of appellees. While the record shows that the escalator unexpectedly stopped, it does not contain evidence that would establish that the stopping distance of the escalator failed to meet minimum safety standards. See Lord v. J.B. Ivey & Company, 499 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Therefore we find no error in the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict on appellants’ claim of simple negligence. Accordingly we affirm the judgment in favor of appellees. AFFIRMED. ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
-
Szilagyi v. N. Fla. Hotel Corp., 610 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…inal judgment against escalator owner/servicer, where injured plaintiff/passenger totally failed to carry initial burden of presenting evidence to show that negligence was the proximate cause of the escalator’s sudden stop); Lord v. J.B. Ivey & Co., 499 So. 2d 12 (1st DCA1986), rev. den., 508 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1987) (trial court did not err in directing verdict for department store on injured escalator passenger’s claim of direct negligence, because record contained no evidence to support that count of the comp…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1978)
- Marrero v. Malcolm G. Goldsmith, M.D., 486 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1986)
- Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 408 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Street, 327 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)