DARLYNN P. EVERETT AND NORMAN EVERETT, APPELLANTS,
v.
RESTAURANT AND CATERING CORPORATION D/B/A PETER'S LA CUISINE, 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 Everetts sued a restaurant after a menu board fell from a ledge and struck Mrs. Everett in the head while she was dining. The trial court granted the restaurant's directed verdict motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the Everetts presented sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the restaurant negligently maintained a dangerous condition.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict. The Everetts presented sufficient evidence of the restaurant's duty to maintain safe premises, the restaurant's control over the dangerous condition (board placement and customer seating), and questions of fact regarding whether the restaurant had knowledge of the condition and whether it created a dangerous hazard—all of which were for the jury to decide.
[1] A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict.
[2] When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benef…
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“Only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict is a directed verdict proper.”
Establishes the high standard required to grant a directed verdict and emphasizes that the trial court must view evidence favorably to plaintiffs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Everett and friends were dining at the restaurant. A waiter removed a wood-framed chalkboard menu from a ledge above Mrs. Everett's head to show …
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darlynn and Norman Everett (“the Ev-eretts”) appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Restaurant and Catering Corporation d/b/a Peter’s La Cuisine (“the restaurant”). The issue before the court is whether the Everetts presented sufficient evidence to defeat the attack of the restaurant’s motion for a directed verdict. We find that the Everetts presented such evidence and accordingly reverse the trial court’s judgment.
“Only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict is a directed verdict proper.” Ferber v. Orange Blossom Center, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The trial court must evaluate the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the plain tiffs and must give the plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be deduced from the evidence. See American Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So. 2d 459, 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Turning to the instant case, the testimony presented at trial showed that Mrs. Everett and a group of her friends were patrons of the restaurant. After seating these customers, the waiter approached the table and removed a wood-framed chalkboard containing the restaurant’s menu from a ledge immediately above Mrs. Everett’s head. The waiter walked around the table to show each of the customers the menu board. The waiter then returned the board to the ledge. While the ladies were waiting, the board toppled from the ledge, striking Mrs. Everett on the back of the head and driving her head into the table. The Everetts’ lawsuit alleged that the restaurant negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition that resulted in Mrs. Everett’s injuries and the loss of consortium to Mr. Everett.
An owner/operator owes a business invitee the duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. See Berman v. Weberman Caterers, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Emmons v. Baptist Hosp., 478 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Everetts’ testimony showed that the restaurant directed and controlled the placement of the menu board on the ledge, the location of the tables, and the seating of the customers directly beneath the ledge and board. Whether the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of these conditions, and whether one or more of these conditions created a dangerous condition, thus violating the restaurant’s duty of reasonable care, were questions for a jury to decide.
The Everetts need not show precisely what caused the board to fall. See Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc., 677 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Likewise, they are not required to produce direct evidence to negate the possibility that Mrs. Everett or one of her companions precipitated the falling of the board. See Harrell v. Beall’s Dept. Store, Inc., 614 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Consequently, we hold that the trial court erred by directing a verdict.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
PARKER, A.C.J., ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001)…Constructive Notice Requirement Related to Transitory Foreign Substances All premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition. See, e.g., Everett v. Restaurant & Catering Corp., 738 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Despite this general proposition, when a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance, the rule has developed that the injured person must prove that the premises owner had actual knowledge or constructive knowl…
-
Barbour v. Brinker Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…a dangerous condition exists when the restaurant’s employees or one of its agents knows of or creates the dangerous condition. See Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730, 732 (Fla.1961); see also Everett v. Restaurant and Catering Corp., 738 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). When the negligence which produces the injury is that of an employee of the defendant, then the matter of the employer’s knowledge of the existence of the dangerous condition becomes inconsequential because the knowledge of the e…
-
Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Zaira Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…arone, 779 So. 2d 371, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("The issue of whether a negligent condition exists on premises generally involves, as here, a disputed material fact which precludes summaty judgment.”); Emerine; Everett v. Restaurant & Catering Corp., 738 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that a directed verdict for the defendant was error because "[wjhether the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of these conditions, and whether one or more of these conditions created a dangerous conditi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Emmons v. Baptist Hosp. & Servicemaster Indus., Inc., 478 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Ferber v. Orange Blossom Ctr., Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Harrell v. Beall's Dep't Store, Inc., 614 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Berman v. Weberman Caterers, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Ctrs., Inc., 677 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)