FLORIDA SUPERMARKETS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MAUREEN WHITE, 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.
Florida Supermarkets appeals a personal injury judgment from a slip-and-fall case, challenging the denial of its motion for directed verdict, plaintiff's closing arguments, and the jury verdict as excessive. The appellate court affirms the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of liability, permissible closing arguments, and a reasonable damage award.
The trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict because sufficient evidence established a jury question regarding the supermarket's responsibility for the water on the floor. The plaintiff's closing arguments were within the bounds of permissible advocacy and did not constitute fundamental error. The jury verdict was reasonable given the plaintiff's permanent injury and forty-one year life expectancy.
[1] A motion for directed verdict is properly denied when a plaintiff adduces sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the defendant's responsibility for a dan…
[2] Appellate courts will generally not consider unobjected-to closing arguments as fundamental error unless they are of a severity comparable to those outlined in Borden, Inc. …
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Plaintiff-appellee Maureen White adduced sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the supermarket's responsibility for the presence of water on the supermarket floor, in which the plaintiff slipped and fell.”
Establishes that the denial of the directed verdict motion was proper because adequate evidence existed for the jury to decide liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaureen White, a physical therapist assistant with no prior history of back trouble, slipped and fell on water on the floor of a supermarket operated …
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 Golden Rule Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Florida Supermarkets, Inc. appeals an adverse final judgment in a personal injury action. We affirm.
As to the first point on appeal, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for directed verdict. Plaintiff-appellee Maureen White adduced sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding the supermarket’s responsibility for the presence of water on the supermarket floor, in which the plaintiff slipped and fell.
As to the second point on appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff made improper closing arguments which, although unobjected to, should be entertained by this court as fundamental error under Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986). We decline to do so, for in our view, the arguments involved in this ease do not resemble those outlined in Borden, Inc. v. Young. Upon reading the arguments as a whole, most, if not all, appear to have been within the bounds of permissible advocacy. Assuming, without deciding, that one or more of plaintiff’s arguments may have been objectionable, there was in fact no objection and the arguments were not of the severity involved in Borden.
Defendant also urges that the plaintiff made an impermissible “Golden Rule” argument. We disagree. See Simmonds v. Lowery, 563 So. 2d 183, 183-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Bew v. Williams, 373 So. 2d 446, 447-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Ratner v. Arrington, 111 So. 2d 82, 88-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).
In the third point on appeal, defendant argues that the verdict in this case is excessive. We reject this argument as well. The plaintiff is a physical therapist assistant who, prior to this accident, had no history of back trouble. Reading the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as prevailing party, the evidence showed that as a result of the fall in the supermarket, the plaintiff sustained an injury to her lower back which causes her pain in the course of her work, and requires regular therapy. The condition is permanent. The jury was instructed that if they found a permanent injury to exist, it could award damages over the plaintiffs life expectancy, which is fifty-one years. In light of the applicable principles, see Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, 1184-85 (Fla.1977), we conclude that no reversible error has been shown.*
Affirmed.
*
We disagree with the defendant’s claim that the jury verdict total exceeded the total requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff suggested a range of damages for several of the damage items. The award is within the range requested, although the jury granted a higher-than-requested amount for pain and suffering, and a lower-than-requested amount for medical care and treatment and lost earnings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grullon v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., 780 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ly disapprove the remarks made by defense counsel concerning plaintiffs attorney, no objection was lodged below. However offensive they may have been they do not rise to the level of fundamental error. See Florida Super [*197] markets Inc. v. White, 667 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). AFFIRMED.…
-
Leitner v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int'l, N.V., 706 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Florida Supermarkets, Inc. v. White, 667 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).…
-
Sanchez v. Renwick, 734 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…more significant of these comments. Defendants now complain about the unobjected-to comments. We conclude that these were not of a magnitude which rise to the level necessary to constitute fundamental error. See Florida Supermarkets, Inc. v. White, 667 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We concur with the trial court that a new trial is not called for. Third, assuming arguendo that defendant Enterprise should have been placed on a different portion of the jury verdict [*596] form, we are unable to see how…
Authorities Cited
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Ratner v. Arrington, 111 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- BEW v. Williams, 373 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Simmonds v. Lowery, 563 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)