ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY M. LENZ AND DAVID LENZ, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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.
Anheuser-Busch appealed a jury verdict finding it 70% negligent for an exploding beer bottle that injured an employee, even though the jury also found the bottle had no defect when placed on the market. The court reversed, holding that the jury's inconsistent findings—finding negligence without a defect and without any other evidence of negligence—violated fundamental legal principles and required judgment for the defendant.
The jury verdict was legally inconsistent and fundamentally flawed. Because the jury found no defect in the bottle and there was no other evidence of negligence by Anheuser-Busch, the case should not have been submitted to the jury for a determination of comparative negligence, and judgment must be entered for the defendant.
[1] A jury verdict is fundamentally erroneous and requires reversal when it contains patently conflicting findings, such as finding no defect in a product but also finding ne…
[2] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable when direct evidence of negligence is unavailable due to the unusual circumstances of the incident, allowing for an infere…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is the unavailability of direct evidence of negligence due to the unusual circumstances of the injuring incident that gives rise to the common-sense inference of negligence, the basis of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur — 'the thing speaks for itself.'”
Establishes that res ipsa loquitur requires the absence of direct evidence of negligence, which was not present here since the jury found no defect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShirley Lenz suffered eye injuries when a beer bottle allegedly exploded in her hand while she was stocking a cooler at a restaurant. The bottle was m…
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 Defective Product cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., has appealed a judgment in favor of Shirley and David Lenz based upon a jury verdict. Two issues are raised: (1) the granting of an instruction on res ipsa loquitur, and (2) the entry of a judgment based upon an inconsistent verdict.
Shirley Lenz alleged that a beer bottle exploded in her hand as she was stocking a beer cooler at the restaurant where she worked. As a result, fragments of glass damaged her left eye. The Lenzes contended that the exploding bottle was in the exclusive custody and control of its manufacturer, Anheuser-Busch, prior to the injury, and requested an instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The jury found both Anheuser-Busch and Shirley Lenz to be negligent, the former to the extent of seventy percent and the latter to the extent of thirty percent. But the jury also found, in an interrogatory verdict form, that Anheuser-Busch did not place the bottle on the market with a defect.
We find the inconsistent jury verdict to be dispositive of this appeal based upon our opinion in North American Catamaran Racing Association, Inc. (NACRA) v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986). Here, as in that ease, the error is a fundamental one.
NACRA concerned a wrongful death action resulting from the capsizing of a catamaran manufactured by NACRA. The jury returned an interrogatory verdict finding (1) that the sailboat was not defective when sold and (2) that there was negligence by NACRA which caused the death of the drowning victim. The findings were patently in conflict because, in the absence of a design defect, there was no other evidence of any negligence by NACRA. Consequently, we reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for NACRA. The instant ease presents the same scenario. The jury specifically found that there was no defect in the bottle when it was placed on the market by Anheuser-Busch, and there was no other evidence of negligence by Anheuser-Busch. Indeed, the absence of any direct evidence of negligence was necessarily the legal basis for the res ipsa loquitur instruction requested by the plaintiff. As observed by the Florida Supreme Court in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla.1978), it is the unavailability of direct evidence of negligence due to the unusual circumstances of the injuring incident that gives rise to the common-sense inference of negligence, the basis of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur — “the thing speaks for itself.” This ease should never have been submitted to the jury for a determination of “comparative” negligence. The trial evidence indicated that the incident was caused either by a defective bottle or the negligence of Shirley Lenz. There was no basis for a finding that any combined negligence caused the incident.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the defendant, Anheu-ser-Busch.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, W. SHARP, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Southland Corp. v. Crane, 699 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…nor does the court err in entering judgment upon the jury’s clarified verdict. [Footnotes omitted]. This court has not hesitated to reverse a judgment where the jury’s verdict reflects findings patently in conflict. See AnheuserBusch, Inc. v. Lenz, 669 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 679 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1996); North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n, Inc. (NACRA) v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); see also Terex Corp. v. Bell, 689 So. 2d 11…
-
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Alvarez, 891 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
-
Terex Corp. v. Bell, 689 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ign and the jury found there was no design defect, there was no other evidence to sustain its verdict. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of appellant. See also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Lenz, 669 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 6th DCA), rev. den., 679 So. 2d 773 (Fla.1996); North American Catamaran Racing Ass’n, Inc. (NACRA) v. McCollister, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. den., 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986). See also Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Braun, 447 S…
Authorities Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1978)
- N. Am. Catamaran Racing Ass'n v. McCOLLISTER, 480 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)