ESTILETA BETHUNE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SANTA ROSA HOSPITAL, APPELLEE, AND SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Bethune sued a hospital for injuries from a fall caused by a puddle of water in her hospital room bathroom. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the hospital, but the appellate court reversed, finding sufficient evidence of negligence for a jury to decide.
The directed verdict for Santa Rosa Hospital was improper because sufficient evidence existed for a jury to determine negligence based on the leak, the duration of water on the floor, and plaintiff's lack of awareness. The denial of Servicemaster's motion for attorney fees was proper because without a transcript of the summary judgment hearing, the court must presume the trial court validly found a justiciable issue.
[1] A directed verdict for a hospital is improper when there is evidence from which a jury could find that a dangerous condition existed, that the hospital should have discov…
[2] A court may deny a motion for attorney fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, if the record does not demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying a prior motio…
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 intelligence“Because the record contains evidence from which the jury could have determined that the puddle was caused by a leak in the pipe under the sink, that the water had been on the bathroom floor for a sufficient length of time so that the Hospital should have discovered it, and that the plaintiff was unaware of the water on the floor prior to her fall, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the Hospital.”
States the court's rationale for reversing the directed verdict, establishing that sufficient evidence existed for jury consideration of negligence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Bethune fell in the bathroom of her hospital room due to a puddle of water near the sink. Evidence indicated the puddle was caused by a leak in 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 Notice Of Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Estileta Bethune, the plaintiff in a negligence action against Santa Rosa Hospital (Hospital) and Servicemaster Management Services Corporation (Servicemaster), asserts that the trial court erred in granting the Hospital’s motion for a directed verdict.1 Servicemaster challenges by cross-appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm the denial of Servicemaster’s motion, but reverse the directed verdict for the Hospital.
Mrs. Bethune sued the Hospital and Servicemaster for injuries she suffered as the result of a fall in the bathroom of her hospital room, allegedly caused by a puddle of water near the sink. Because the record contains evidence from which the jury could have determined that the puddle was caused by a leak in the pipe under the sink, that the water had been on the bathroom floor for a sufficient length of time so that the Hospital should have discovered it,2 and that the plaintiff was unaware of the water on the floor prior to her fall, the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the Hospital.
We reject Servicemaster’s claim that the trial court erred in denying its motion for attorney fees because the record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on Servicemaster’s motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. Without some showing that the trial court erred in that ruling, we must presume that the trial court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment was based upon a valid finding of a “justiciable issue” in the claim, and that this finding supports its denial of the motion for attorney fees based on a “frivolous claim”.
The denial of Servicemaster’s motion for attorney fees is AFFIRMED. The directed verdict for Santa Rosa Hospital is REVERSED, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. . .Servicemaster, which provided housekeeping services for the Hospital, was also granted a directed verdict and was named as appellee, but appellant voluntarily dismissed Servicemaster as appellee after its answer brief was filed.
. The record also contains testimony from which the jury could have concluded that the Hospital actually knew about the leak.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ghanzanfar Raza v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. in Tr. for the Benefit of the Certificateholders for Argent Sec. Tr. 2005-W4, 100 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…circumstances could not fail to award any fee. For example, the majority cites to Bornschein, 987 So. 2d 172, for the proposition that no findings by the trial court were required. But Bornschein was an offer of judgment fee case. Likewise, Bethune, 510 So. 2d 1039, involved a frivolous claim under section 57.105. The controlling law is set forth in Sorrentino v. River Run Condominium Association, 925 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The trial court had denied an award of attorney’s fees to the Sorrenti-nos,…1 / 2