WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHEA BENTON, 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.
Winn Dixie appeals a jury verdict for plaintiff Benton in a slip-and-fall case, arguing the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirms, holding that the evidence of a milk puddle, scattered milk drops over a 80-foot trail, and store maintenance failures was sufficient for a jury to infer the store had notice of the dangerous condition.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer notice. The condition of the floor, the nature and pattern of the milk substance, the extended trail of drops, and the surrounding circumstances (lack of sweeping, failure to conduct customary floor inspection, credibility questions about the manager's inspection claim) were sufficient to support an inference that the milk had been on the floor long enough for store employees to know or should have known of the condition.
[1] A jury may infer that a dangerous condition existed long enough for a store to have notice based on the condition of the floor, the nature of the substance, and surroundi…
[2] Evidence of a trail of spilled substance and the condition of the container may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish notice of a dangerous condition.
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“The evidence, any conflicts in the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions which may be drawn from the evidence, must be resolved in favor of the appellee.”
Establishes the standard of review on appeal from a jury verdict—all ambiguities and conflicts are resolved in favor of the prevailing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenton slipped and fell on a puddle of milk in Winn Dixie's market. At the fall site was a puddle of milk 5-8 inches long and 3-4 inches wide, with mi…
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 Inference Upon Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The appellee was injured in a slip and fall in appellant’s market. We affirm a final judgment, entered following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, and find no error in the trial court’s denial of Winn Dixie’s motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
At the point of the fall there was a puddle of milk, five to eight inches long and three to four inches wide. There were also milk drops on the floor in a thirty foot trail from the milk container case to the puddle and for another fifty feet from the puddle to the checkout lines. The drops were in an even pattern, one to one and a half feet apart. A leaky half gallon or gallon milk carton, one quarter empty, was found at the checkout area immediately after the fall. The appellant asserts that the store is normally busy at the time of the accident but appellee argues that this is refuted by the evidence that there were no other customers in the dairy aisle. The floor had not been swept for more than one-half hour prior to the incident. There was evidence that the store manager did not conduct his customary floor inspection that afternoon, and the manager’s testimony that he had “inspected” that particular aisle fifteen minutes before the accident was questioned by plaintiffs challenges to the credibility of the witness.
The evidence, any conflicts in the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions which may be drawn from the evidence, must be resolved in favor of the appellee. E.g. Kolosky v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 472 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1986).
It was plaintiffs burden to prove that the milk was on the floor sufficiently long to charge Winn Dixie with notice. Notice may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It has frequently been recognized that the condition of the floor, the nature of the substance on the floor, and the surrounding circumstances, may be sufficient to support an inference by the jury that a dangerous condition existed long enough for the store employees to know, or that they should have known, of the condition. Under such circumstances the issue is for the jury to resolve even where the evidence may be susceptible of more than one reasonable inference. See e.g. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1970) (slip on a dirty and scuffed container top); Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (slip on clear substance with dark tracks from cart running through it); Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1988) (slip on thawing frozen peas; water on floor; not known whether water was from frost on exterior of bag that quickly melted); Camina v. Parliament Ins. Co., 417 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (slip on thawed dirty ice cream, the extent to which plaintiffs fall contributed to condition of ice cream not known); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (slip on puddle with scuff marks and tracks through it); Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (slip on partially liquified frozen orange juice concentrate). See also Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enters., Inc., 560 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 567 So. 2d 435 (1990).
Resolving whether the store should have discovered the danger in this case did not require the jury to build an inference on an inference. Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Nor do we consider resolution of the notice issue here to require pure speculation, deemed unacceptable in Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) and Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
It was within the province of the jury to decide whether the milk had been dripping for a sufficiently long period to be discovered in the exercise of reasonable care.
DELL J., concurs.
WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.
WARNER, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view the evidence shows that a maximum of five to ten minutes passed between the last time a store employee walked down the aisle and the injury to appellee occurred. The milk puddle was fresh and there were no tire tracks through it. The evidence is insufficient to show that the management knew or should have known that the dripping milk was on the floor for a sufficient time to be discovered. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith Barney Inc. v. Potter, 725 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…276 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 675 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1996) (accuracy of trial court’s conclusions tested by interpreting all evidence and reasonable inferences in light most favorable to trial court’s conclusions); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 589 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1991) (on appeal all evidence and conflicts and all reasonable conclusions must be resolved in favor of prevailing party); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Brummitt, 390 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (w…
-
Grier v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 660 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…overable as a matter of law. See Ress v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc., 616 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (presence of sauerkraut on supermarket floor for five minutes or more raises issue of constructive notice); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (milk on aisle floor between fifteen and thirty minutes; same), review denied, 589 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1991). Surely none of the ones it relies upon stands for any such proposition. Antenor v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.3d 477,…
-
Leonora Wilkes and William Wilkes v. Fla. Supermarkets, Inc., 619 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…in this slip and fall action because the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to raise a factual question as to whether the appellee had constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor of its store. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Benton, 576 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (the condition of the floor, the nature of the substance on the floor, and surrounding circumstances, may be sufficient to support an inference by the jury that a condition existed long enough for store employees to know of the c…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- In the Interest v. McD., 472 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Isaac v. State, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- R.B. Brooks and Cynthia Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enters., Inc., 560 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 417 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- United Invs. Corp. v. Horowitz, 237 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1970)