RUTH SILVERS, APPELLANT,
v.
WAL-MART 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.
In this slip-and-fall case, the appellate court reversed a directed verdict against the plaintiff, holding that she established a prima facie case of negligence based on evidence that Wal-Mart was mopping the floor at the time of the incident and had placed warning cones.
The plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence, and the trial court erred in directing a verdict. The interrogatory answer was admissible as substantive evidence and demonstrated the store's knowledge of the dangerous condition, rendering the directed verdict inappropriate.
[1] An answer to an interrogatory can be admitted as substantive evidence in a slip and fall case.
[2] A store's knowledge of a dangerous condition, such as water on the floor, can be established by evidence that maintenance personnel were mopping the floor and had placed…
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“The trial court erred in refusing to consider the answer to the interrogatory as substantive evidence. Alexander v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ. P. 1.340(b). The answer demonstrated that the store had knowledge of the dangerous condition, and accordingly the trial court erred in directing a verdict.”
Establishes that interrogatory answers are admissible as substantive evidence and that knowledge of the dangerous condition defeats a directed verdict in negligence cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor while entering Wal-Mart during rainy weather. She testified that water was on the floor and shopping carts w…
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 Substantive Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was the plaintiff in this slip and fall case and appeals a directed verdict. We conclude that she established a prima facie case of negligence and reverse.
According to plaintiff it was raining on the day she went into Wal-Mart and, on her way toward the carts, she slipped and fell. She testified that there was water on the floor and that the shopping carts were dripping weti As part of her case she introduced an answer to an interrogatory in which Wal-Mart stated that maintenance personnel were mopping the floor at the time of the incident and had placed cones in the area.
At the conclusion of plaintiffs case, the trial court ruled that the answer to the interrogatory was not admissible as substantive evidence and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that there was no evidence as to how long the water had been on the floor or that it was known to the defendant.
The trial court erred in refusing to consider the answer to the interrogatory as substantive evidence. Alexander v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ. P. 1.340(b). The answer demonstrated that the store had knowledge of the dangerous condition, and accordingly the trial court erred in directing a verdict.
Our conclusion that plaintiff presented a prima facie case is not grounded on Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla.2001), because Owens was not retroactive as to cases tried before the decision. Id. at 331. Our reversal, however, places this case into the category of cases in which trial has not yet begun, to which Owens applies. Id. at 331. Owens, however, may have been abrogated to some extent by section 768.0710, Florida Statutes (2002).1
Appellant also raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in not admitting a statement of a bystander as an excited utterance. We find no error as to that ruling.
Reversed.
SHAHOOD, J., and DELL, JOHN W., Senior Judge, concur. . We are not deciding if section 768.0710, in which the Legislature addressed the burden of proof in slip and fall cases, in response to Owens, can be applied retroactively to this accident. The statute provides that it applies to all pending cases; however, it may not be that simple. As our supreme court explained in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 61 (Fla.1995):
The general rule is that a substantive statute will not operate retrospectively absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, but that a procedural or remedial statute is to operate retrospectively. Even when the Legislature does expressly state that a statute is to have retroactive application, this Court has refused to apply a statute retroactively if the statute impairs vested rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new penalties, [citations omitted.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Impex OF Doral, Inc., 7 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…roduce depositions and answers to interrogatories as substantive evidence. This argument is misplaced. First, under Florida law, a party’s answers to interrogatories may be used as substantive evidence at trial. See Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 826 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Florida law also provides for the use of the deposition of the opposing party as substantive evidence at trial. Canales v. Compania de Vapores Realma, S.A., 564 So. 2d…
-
Armen Melkonian and Diana Melkonian v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 844 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…EONARD, Associate Judge, concur. . Owens was issued on November 15, 2001 and trial took place December 3 and 4, 2001. . We decline to address the applicability of the recent enacted section 768.0710. As we held in Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 826 So. 2d 513, 514 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), We are not deciding if section 768.0710, in which the Legislature addressed the burden of proof in slip and fall cases, in response to Owens, can be applied retroactively to this accident. The statute provides that it…
-
Zimmerman v. Eckerd Corp., 839 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…a Statutes (2002),1 which in large part overruled Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 316 (Fla.2001), is retroactively applicable. See Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 826 So. 2d 256 (Fla.2002); Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 826 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). This is because the evidence of Eckerd’s maintenance of the premises operated both conclusively to rebut any Owens presumption of its negligence and affirmatively demonstrated the absence of its liability under section 768.0710(…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001)
- Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)