AGNES LEONARDI AND SAM LEONARDI, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALGREEN CO., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, 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.
Agnes Leonardi appealed a jury verdict in favor of Walgreen Company after she slipped on mineral oil in the defendant's store. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's jury instructions on negligence and contributory negligence.
The trial court did not err in refusing the requested instructions or in the contributory negligence instruction actually given. The jury's verdict for the defendant was proper, and no grounds for reversal exist.
“An appellate court will not reverse on the ground that a particular charge is limited if the charges are not misleading but are, in the aggregate, complete and correct.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of jury instructions regarding sufficiency and completeness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAgnes Leonardi was walking down the aisle of a Walgreen store when she slipped and fell on mineral oil that had been spilled on the floor approximatel…
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 Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
Agnes Leonardi and husband Sam Leonardi appeal a final judgment entered on jury verdict for the defendant Walgreen Company. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was negligent in causing and permitting mineral oil to remain on the floor of its store, that the floor was slippery and that the plaintiff wife was not warned of the danger that caused her to fall and suffer temporary and permanent injuries.
Plaintiff Agnes Leonardi testified that she was walking down the aisle of defendant’s store in a normal manner, turned a corner and almost immediately slipped and fell on mineral oil on the floor. Defendant’s manager testified that a bottle of mineral oil had been broken on the floor about one minute or less before the plaintiff’s fall. He immediately sent an assisl^nt to get a mop to clean the floor and in the meantime he, the manager, placed a carton over the oil and stood at the area to warn customers to walk around it. He testified that he saw the plaintiff approaching the area when she was about four feet away and warned her verbally three times to avoid the oil. The third time he put up his hand to emphasize the warning. He stated that “she was just looking straight forward at me and kept coming at me * * * ”, and that she then walked right into the oil and fell. The manager attempted to catch her but he also fell.
The case was tried on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff did not move for a new trial and may not challenge the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. 2 Fla.Jur., Appeal, § 71 and cases there cited.
It is argued on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant plaintiffs’ requested instructions numbers 8, 9, and 10 pertaining to contributory negligence and further erred in the instruction actually given on contributory negligence. We have reviewed the instruction given and the re*774quested instructions and find no error on the part of the trial court. An appellate court will not reverse on the ground that a particular charge is limited if the charges are not misleading but are, in the aggregate, complete and correct. Solomon v. State, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 492; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App. 1962, 137 So.2d 17.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Scott, 153 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ly presented to the jury. An appellate court ordinarily will not reverse for denying certain instructions if the aggregate charges given are complete, correct and not likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Cf. Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 773; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17. See also 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, §§ 1096, 1097. In plaintiffs’ view of the evidence it is understandable that they should be offended by the jury’s verdict. As we see it, however, a valid verdi…
-
Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 358], and an appellate court will not reverse the trial court if the aggregate charges given are complete, correct, and not likely to confuse' or mislead the jury. See: Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 773; Williams v. Scott, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 18. Having reviewed the instructions given in light of the foregoing, we find no harmful error on the part of the trial court. As to the second contention, it has long been the seftled rule that damages i…
-
Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDONALD Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…dental expenses caused by the loss of its use. We have reviewed the instructions given in this regard and the requested instructions, and conclude that those given were, in the aggregate, complete and correct. Leonardi v. Walgreen Co., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 773; Solomon v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So. 2d 492; Stiles v. Calvetto, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 17. We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirme…
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
- Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Stiles v. Calvetto, 137 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)