SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROMELDA SHEPPARD AND ARTHUR SHEPPARD, HER HUSBAND, 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 Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a jury verdict in a slip and fall case against Sears, holding that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to submit the question to the jury despite conflicting evidence.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict and that the question was properly submitted to the jury, which was entitled to make reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence.
“The evidence of negligence here was slight but there was sufficient evidence of negligence to withstand the motion for directed verdict and it was proper to submit the question to the jury”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the submission of the negligence claim to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRomelda Sheppard, a business invitee, sued Sears after a slip and fall incident. The evidence presented at trial was conflicting regarding the creatio…
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 Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto cases and more on FLexlaw
Sears appeals from an adverse final judgment, after a jury trial, in a slip and fall suit by a business invitee.
Appellants claim that the appellees failed to prove a prima facie case of negligence sufficient to go to the jury and that the trial judge should have granted their motions for directed verdict, for new trial, or for judgment non obstante veredicto.
The record on appeal indicates that there was conflicting evidence concerning the creation of the conditions alleged to have caused the accident. The evidence of negligence here was slight but there was sufficient evidence of negligence to withstand the motion for directed verdict and it was proper to submit the question to the jury,1 which was entitled to make reasonable deductions and inferences from the evidence.2
No error having been clearly demonstrated, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R & G Props., Inc. v. Gertrude Rothbard, 244 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…utwiler v. I. Beverally Nalle, Inc., 152 Fla. 479, 12 So. 2d 163 (1943); Kimmons v. Crawford, 92 Fla. 652, 109 So. 585 (1926); Smith v. Mont [*539] gomery Ward & Co., Fla.App. 1970, 232 So. 2d 195; Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Sheppard, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 62; Ortner v. Linch, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 152; and 52 C.J.S. Landlord & Tenant § 418.…
-
Glenn v. Gibson, 206 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…clearly made to appear. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Gary, Fla.1951, 57 So. 2d 10; Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Larkins, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 408; Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Sheppard, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 62. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Larkins, 174 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)