HEIDI CHRISTAKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
TIVOLI TERRACE, LLC, 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 court held that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was inappropriate when there was conflicting evidence regarding causation in a negligence case.
Appellant fell on stairs and sued for negligence. Evidence showed the steps were in disrepair, though the appellant could not definitively state what …
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 Inference Upon Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in this negligence case involving the appellant’s fall on stairs. A directed verdict is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to causation. Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So.3d 273 (Fla.2015). In this case, there was conflicting evidence *580as to causation, as the appellant showed that the steps on which she fell were in disrepair. Although she could not testify as to exactly what made her fall, the- evidence presented by both the expert and the photos of the steps showed their damaged condition. Thus, this case is factually almost identical to Roach v. Raubar, 362 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There, the plaintiff also did not know why she fell, but photos showed that the step upon which she fell was damaged. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not building inference upon inference because the damage to the step was established:
[T]he defective condition of the step was not a presumption but must be regarded as a fact from the photographic evidence and plaintiffs testimony. Under the circumstances of this case, the jury would be entitled to find that the plaintiffs fall was occasioned by the defective condition. inasmuch as the evidence shows that the fall occurred at the time and place where the defective condition existed.
Id. at 85. The same result is required in this case. The court eiTed in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment wpon the jury verdict.
WARNER, MAY, JR, and GILLEN, JEFFREY DANA, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Lobster Haven, LLC, 320 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…t the defect caused the December 21 GI infection. See § 90.705(2) ("[T]he opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering the testimony establishes the underlying facts or data."); Christakis v. Tivoli Terrace, LLC, 181 So. 3d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing judgment notwithstanding verdict where the plaintiff "was not building inference upon inference because the [defect] was established"); cf. Davie Plaza, 232 So. 3d at 446 ("[T]he inference that Maroudis placed his…
-
Christakis v. Tivoli Terrace, LLC, 219 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…nd time on appeal. In its first appearance, we reversed the trial court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict, -holding that there was conflicting evidence as to the cause of Appellant Heidi Christakis’s injuries. Christakis v. Tivoli Terrace, LLC, 181 So. 3d 579, 579-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Importantly for present purposes, at no point during that prior appeal did Appellant make any suggestion to this Court [*86] that there was any error in the jury’s award of damages; her sole argument was that the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Shandalyn Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P'ship, 157 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2015)
- Roach v. Mrs. John (Helen) Raubar, 362 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)