WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA MERCHANT, 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 court held that the defendant's failure to specifically object to an inadmissible portion of a videotape precluded a new trial based on its subsequent mention.
A shopper tripped on a coat hanger left by a store employee. A videotape used for employee training was admitted into evidence, but a portion detailin…
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 Objection To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee tripped on a coat hanger while shopping at Winn Dixie. Her version of the case, which the jury believed, was that a store employee had left the hanger on the floor after using it to adjust items on a high shelf.
Appellee introduced a videotape in evidence which Winn Dixie used to train its employees about safety issues. Under the circumstances of this case, the tape was admissible, except for a portion which stated that accident claims cost the company $72,-000,000 per year. § 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1993). Winn Dixie, however, failed to specifically object to that portion of the tape or to seek to have it be redacted before being played to the jury. See § 90.104(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). Because Winn Dixie failed to object to the specific portion of the tape which was inadmissible, we cannot agree that Winn Dixie is entitled to a new trial as a result of appellee’s counsel’s reference to that portion of the tape during closing argument.
In addition, the verdict does not reflect that the jury was swayed by plaintiffs argument, since appellee recovered only a portion of what she sought for pain and suffering, the item of damages most hotly in dispute. See Arison Shipping Co. v. Smith, 311 So. 2d 739, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1976).
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., and GROSS, ROBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huck v. State, 881 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…s. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ„ concur. . Black flexible rubber cord of the type used to install screens. . These are the names of other acquaintances of the victim. . See, e.g., Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Merchant, 652 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); § 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). . A party cannot make or invite error, and then take advantage of it on appeal. See Bennett v. Morales, 845 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).…
Authorities Cited
- Arison Shipping Co. v. Smith, 311 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)