WILLIAM STROHM AND BEATRICE STROHM, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A 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.
A customer was injured when a negligently stacked beer display at a Winn-Dixie store fell on her after another customer removed a carton. The court reversed a summary judgment for the store, holding that the store's negligent stacking could be the proximate cause of injury even though a third party's conduct triggered the fall.
Yes. A store's negligent stacking of merchandise at a dangerous height can be the proximate cause of injury to a customer even if another customer's act of selecting and removing merchandise from the display directly caused it to fall.
“If at trial plaintiffs should establish the alleged negligence of the defendant in stacking the beer carton display at such height, manner and location as to constitute .a hazard to its business invitees, and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of her alleged injury, her cause of action would not disappear upon proof that another customer caused the same to fall by selecting and removing a carton from the display.”
States the court's holding that proximate causation is not negated by an intervening third party's foreseeable act
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeatrice Strohm was injured while shopping in a Winn-Dixie store when a beer display stacked six feet three inches high fell on her. An unidentified c…
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 Business Invitee cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs appeal from a summary final judgment entered in favor of defendant
The complaint alleges that Beatrice Strohm was injured while shopping in defendant’s store; that defendant so negligently stacked its brand canned beer to a. height of five or six feet that should a customer pick up or brush against one carton, the entire stack would fall; that while her attention was directed to the contents of a frozen food counter, an unidentified purchaser picked up or brushed against a carton of such beer and said beer display fell, striking and injuring plaintiff,. Beatrice Strohm; that defendant’s alleged negligent and careless stacking of the beer display constituted a dangerous condition,, and that as a direct and proximate result of defendant’s alleged negligence, plaintiff,. Beatrice Stroh'm, was injured.
Defendant answered the complaint by denying all allegations of negligence; pleaded contributory negligence, and that the negligence, if any, in causing the beer display to fall was the act of a third party, a customer in defendant’s store. Defendant moved for summary final judgment based upon the pleadings and depositions on file.. We have examined the depositions in the light of the issues developed by the pleadings. The facts revealed by the depositions-fail to overcome every theory on which,, under the pleadings, plaintiffs’ position might be sustained. Smith v. Musso, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 475; Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 606, Opinion filed January 15, 1965; Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Company, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 777.
It may be gleaned from the depositions-that the beer display was stacked to a. height of six feet three inches; that a. customer of considerable less height removed a hand carton from the top of the display and thereupon the remaining cartons came tumbling down, striking plaintiff, Beatrice Strohm.
If at trial plaintiffs should establish the alleged negligence of the defendant in stacking the beer carton display at such *443height, manner and location as to constitute .a hazard to its business invitees, and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of her alleged injury, her cause of action would not disappear upon proof that another customer caused the same to fall by selecting and removing a carton from the display. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 45.
The summary final judgment appealed from is reversed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake v. Ilias Konstantinu and Parke, 189 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…mary judgment for the defendant must be denied if the facts revealed by the depositions, etc., failed to overcome every theory on which, under the pleadings, plaintiff’s position might be sustained. Strohm v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 2d D.C.A. 1965, 174 So. 2d 441. Florida is committed to the “slightest doubt” rule and even though there is no conflict in the evidence, a motion for summary judgment should be denied where inferences are reasonably deducible therefrom casting doubt upon the issue of negligence.…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Strohm, 177 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 174 So. 2d 441.…
-
Mulkey v. Zimmerman, 181 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…defendants a summary judgment as a matter of law.2 Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . Blackman v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1960, 125 So. 2d 128, 92 A.L.R.2d 1387. . Strohm v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 441; Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Company, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 777.…
Authorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club, 171 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Edsel Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc., 138 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Smith v. Musso, 151 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)