DELPHINE MEUS AND ERITH MEUS, APPELLANTS,
v.
EAGLE FAMILY DISCOUNT STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant before plaintiff could present testimony establishing that a dangerous condition (water on store floor) existed long enough that the store owner should have known of it, creating a jury question on liability.
A trial court errs in directing a verdict for a defendant before the plaintiff completes presenting evidence, particularly when proffered testimony would establish a jury question regarding whether a dangerous condition existed long enough for the owner to have knowledge of it.
[1] A directed verdict is improper when proffered testimony would establish a jury question regarding whether a store owner had knowledge of a dangerous condition existing on…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“whether the dangerous condition was one which had 'existed for sufficient length of time that the owner should have known of it'”
Citing the standard from Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores for establishing store owner liability in slip-and-fall cases
Plaintiffs slipped and fell on water in defendant's store. Plaintiffs' young son was prepared to testify that he had observed water on the store floor…
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 Notice Of Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although the state of the record in this case leaves much to be desired, it unquestionably appears therefrom that (1) before the plaintiffs had had an opportunity to present all of their witnesses on the issue of the defendant’s liability, the defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor; (2) the plaintiffs thereafter advised the court that they intended to call as a witness the plaintiffs’ young son; (3) a fair reading of the proffered testimony of the son is that his mother slipped and fell on water which he had seen on the floor of the defendant’s store ten minutes earlier when he entered the store; and (4) notwithstanding that the proffered testimony would have presented a jury question as to the defendant’s liability, that is, whether the dangerous condition was one which had “existed for sufficient length of time that the owner should have known of it,” Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores, 284 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1974), the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The implicit rejection of the proffered testimony and the ensuing entry of a directed verdict and final judgment thereon are error, and the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Marlowe, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1974)
- Frankenberry v. State, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1974)