F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EMILY ANN STEVENS AND HER HUSBAND, DONALD EUGENE STEVENS, APPELLEES
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 the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a jury issue regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a spilled soap solution in the defendant's store. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove the store cre…
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 Negative Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, F. W. Woolworth Company, appeals a final judgment based on a jury verdict for the plaintiffs, Emily Ann Stevens and her husband, Donald Eugene Stevens. The sole point on appeal urges error upon the trial court’s refusal to grant defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
The cause of action arose out of an accident which the plaintiff-wife alleged occurred when she slipped in a soap-bubble solution which had been spilled on the floor of defendant’s store. Defendant, as appellant, urges that the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant or its employees created the condition or that it had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition. See Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 5.
The testimony of the plaintiff was that she had been in the store fifteen or twenty minutes before the accident; and during that time, as she slowly progressed down the aisles of the store, there were no customers between her and the place of the accident. Appellant maintains that this is negative testimony, and that in the face of positive testimony of the manager and one of the store employees that the area was clean five minutes before the accident, the testimony of the plaintiff was insufficient to create a jury issue. See Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern R. R. Co., Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 580.
We affirm upon the holding that in this posture of the case, all of the testimony and all proper inferences therefrom must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff. Kilgore Seed Co. v. Pearce, Fla.1958, 103 So.2d 112; Budgen v. Brady, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 672. Viewed in this light, there is sufficient evidence to have required jury consideration of the issues.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Booker v. Udelio Lima and Mary Lima, 182 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…for review on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. At this stage of the proceedings, all reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the validity of the verdict. See: F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 201; LeJeune Road Hospital, Incorporated v. Watson, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 202; Busbee v. Quarrier, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 17. And, if there is any evidence to support same, it should be affirmed. See: Kowalczyk v. Brudder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d…
-
Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Earle A. Harrison, 338 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ct for a plaintiff, here [*60] appellee, all of the testimony and all proper inferences therefrom must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff. , See, e. g., Land v. Patroni, 214 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1st DCA 1968); and F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Stevens, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). While an appellate court may not always agree with the conclusions of the jury from the conflicting evidentiary facts presented to it, the court is generally bound to affirm the jury’s determination, absent a clear showing that it…
-
The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc. v. The Fed. Detective Agency, Inc., 157 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…wser v. Harder, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 752] and, upon review of this record, all inferences are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. See: Prince Michael Corp. v. Zucker, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 332; F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 201. It was within the province of the jury, upon the evidence presented to them, to conclude that A & P not only ratified the acts of its agent, Sharp, but in fact authorized the institution of the proceedings which formed the basis of the malicious…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tyus v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 130 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1961)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- The Kilgore Seed Co. v. Gwynn H. Pearce, 103 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1958)