BARBARA WOODS AND ANTHONY WOODS, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., 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.
The Woods sued Winn Dixie Stores for negligence after slipping on an unidentified substance in the store. The jury found Winn Dixie 75% negligent, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court reversed, holding that circumstantial evidence of dirt, scuffs, and skid marks in the substance was sufficient to support the jury's finding of constructive notice.
The court held that testimony regarding dirt, scuffing, and tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice to support a jury verdict. Circumstantial evidence of the condition's characteristics can establish that the dangerous condition existed long enough that the store, exercising ordinary care, should have known of it.
[1] Evidence of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance is sufficient to generate inferences of constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
[2] Constructive notice of a dangerous condition is established by evidence that the condition existed for a duration sufficient for a party exercising ordinary care to have…
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“To sustain judgment pursuant to a directed verdict, the record must conclusively show an absence of fact, or any inference from fact that would support the jury's verdict.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing directed verdicts—evidence and inferences must support the verdict for it to stand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Woods slipped and fell on an unidentified substance while shopping at a Winn Dixie store. Both appellants and Winn Dixie's employee testified …
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 Constructive Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Barbara Woods and Anthony Woods, appeal a final judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse.
Appellant, Anthony Woods, slipped and fell on an unidentified substance while shopping in appellee’s, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., store. Appellants sued appellee alleging negligence.
At the jury trial, the appellants described the substance as “very dirty”, “trampled”, “containing skid marks, scuff marks.” Ap-pellee’s employee verified that the “chewed up” substance contained a scuff mark. Appellants could not say who had caused the marks.
The trial court reserved ruling on appel-lee’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of constructive notice. The jury found appellee 75% negligent and appellant 25% negligent. The trial court set aside the jury verdict and entered judgment for appellee on its motion for directed verdict.
In determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See, e.g., Dania Jai Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 425 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), quashed in part on other grounds, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1984). To sustain judgment pursuant to a directed verdict, the record must conclusively show an absence of fact, or any inference from fact that would support the jury’s verdict. See, e.g., Sears Roebuck & Company v. McKenzie, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987).
Constructive notice of a dangerous condition is shown by evidence that the condition existed for such a length of time that a party, exercising ordinary care, should have known of it. See, e.g., Maryland Maintenance Service, Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1990). The length of time that the condition existed can be proved by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Altman v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Testimony of dirt, scuffing, or tracks in a substance generates sufficient inferences of constructive notice. See, e.g., Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (testimony that liquid was dirty and scuffed with tracks running through it, sufficient to impute constructive notice of a dangerous condition); see also, Skipper v. Barnes Supermarket, 573 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (indicia of constructive notice includes evidence of cart tracks and footprints).
Both the appellants and appellee’s employee testified to dirt, scuffs or skid marks in the substance causing appellant to fall. The jury found that appellee had constructive notice of this dangerous condition and neglected to correct it. The inferences made from the circumstantial evidence are reasonable and support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the jury verdict.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001)…ubstance may in itself be sufficient to create a jury question on constructive notice. See Ramey v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 710 So. 2d 191, 192-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (partially melted butter with lumps in it); Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (unidentified substance described as “very dirty,” “trampled,” “containing skid marks, scuff marks,” and “chewed up”); Ress v. X-tra Super Food Ctrs., Inc., 616 So. 2d 110, 110-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (substance that appeared…
-
Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…d not be granted unless the trial court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party”). See also Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(stating that “[i]n determining a motion for directed verdict, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences, therefrom, must be viewed in a light most [*176] favorable to the • nonmoving party.”). Based upon our careful review…
-
Scott v. TPI Rests., Inc., 798 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…eight of the evidence. It is not unusual for trial judges to take a motion for directed verdict under advisement until after the jury returns with a verdict. See generally Conda v. Plain, 222 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1969); Woods v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.480(b). If a trial judge should elect to do so, his or her decision is reviewed by appellate courts pursuant to the same standard of review generally applied to motions for directed verdict decided duri…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1984)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Sears v. McKENZIE, 502 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Md. Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Vittorio Palmieri and Bertha Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 425 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Skipper v. Barnes Supermarket, 573 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Altman v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)