FAST LAUNDRY II, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD V. GRAY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GREGORIA PALOMARES, 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.
Fast Laundry appealed the trial court's grant of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a premises liability slip-and-fall case. The appellate court reversed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict apportioning fault among multiple defendants and that the trial court erred in granting JNOV.
The court reversed the grant of JNOV and reinstated the jury verdict. Sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences supported the jury's apportionment of fault, and the trial court erred in granting JNOV because a party moving for JNOV must admit all material facts and inferences supporting the opposing party's position, and JNOV may only be granted when no evidence or inferences support the opposing party's position.
[1] A trial court may grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only when there is no evidence or inferences that support the opposing party's position.
[2] A party seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict admits all material facts attested by their adversary and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evid…
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“The party seeking a JNOV admits all material facts as attested by his adversary and all inferences that reasonably might be drawn from the evidence as a whole.”
Establishes the legal standard that a JNOV movant must accept all facts and inferences favorable to the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGregoria Palomares slipped and fell while entering Fast Laundry's laundromat, claiming negligent premises maintenance and failure to warn of or mark a…
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 Fabre Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Fast Laundry II (“Fast Laundry”), appeals the granting of appellee, Gregoria Palomares’ (“plaintiff’) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). The plaintiff cross-appeals a jury instruction on a Fabre defense. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1993). We reverse with directions to reinstate the jury’s verdict and affirm the cross-appeal.
The plaintiff sued Fast Laundry in a premise liability action to recover damages for injuries sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell as she entered Fast Laundry’s laundromat. Plaintiff alleged that Fast Laundry negligently maintained the premises and failed to warn of or mark the area of the step-down. Fast Laundry was permitted to identify Fabre defendants including the landlord/owner and the contractor. The jury awarded plaintiff $200,000.00, finding Fast Laundry 20% at fault, and the landlord/owner and contractor, both 40% at fault. Plaintiff then moved for a JNOV on the issue of the non-parties comparative fault. The trial court, thereafter, granted the JNOV and apportioned 100% fault on Fast Laundry. Fast Laundry contends that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion for JNOV. We agree.
The party seeking a JNOV admits all material facts as attested by his adversary and all inferences that reasonably might be drawn from the evidence as a whole. See Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., 160 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Trial courts may grant motions for JNOV only when there is no evidence or inferences which may support the opposing party’s position. See Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1969); United Farm Agency of Florida, Inc., v. DELS, Inc., 560 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
A review of the record shows that the evidence and inferences, when viewed in the light most favorable to Fast Laundry, support the jury’s verdict. See United Farm, 560 So. 2d at 1213. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the JNOV and reinstate the jury’s verdict. We affirm the cross appeal, finding the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the Fabre defense.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ence. See Irven v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 790 So. 2d 403 (Fla.2001); Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Natson v. Eckerd Corp., Inc., 885 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Fast Laundry II v. Gray, 861 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Jackson County Hospital Corp., v. Aldrich, 835 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Cecile Resort, Ltd. v. Hokanson, 729 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In Scott v. TPI Restaurants, Inc., 798 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this…
-
McQUEEN v. Mohan W. Jersani, M.D., 909 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…favor of the non-movant. See Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). A JNOV is appropriate only in situations where there is no evidence upon which a jury could rely in finding for the non-movant. Id.; Fast Laundry II v. Gray, 861 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Virginia argues that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to her and resolving all conflicts in her favor establishes ample support for the jury’s verdict. She asserts that Dr. Stoner’s expert testimony amounts to comp…
-
Salomon Melgen and Melissa Melgen v. Boris Suarez, 951 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…s been made. Id.; Irven v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 790 So. 2d 403, 407 n. 2 (Fla.2001). A motion for JNOV may be granted only when there is no evidence or inferences to support the opposing party’s position. Fast Laundry II v. Gray, 861 So. 2d 81, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Collazos v. City of W. Miami, 683 So. 2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). A review of the record in this instance demonstrates that the evidence and [*918] the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence when v…
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
- Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993)
- Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1969)
- Deese v. White Belt Dairy Farms, Inc., 160 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- United Farm Agency OF Fla., Inc. v. DKLS, Inc., 560 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)