WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT BURSE, 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.
Winn-Dixie Stores appeals a jury verdict awarding $7,500 to a customer injured when he slipped on a plastic beer container top in the store. The court affirms, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding of constructive knowledge of the hazard based on the store's failure to maintain the premises and the foreseeability of container tops accumulating on the floor.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict. The testimony presented a jury question regarding constructive knowledge because the circumstances made it foreseeable that container tops would end up on the floor, and the evidence supported an inference that the container had been on the floor long enough to constitute notice to the store.
“Under these circumstances, it is foreseeable that container tops might end up on the floor, and in the instant case the evidence leads to the reasonable inference that the container that was the cause of the plaintiff's injury had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time so as to constitute notice.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that foreseeability and the condition of the container support constructive knowledge of the hazard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Burse slipped and fell on a plastic container top from a six-pack of beer while shopping at a Winn-Dixie store. It was common practice for cust…
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 Constructive Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment reflecting a jury decision to award damages to plaintiff in a slip and fall case.
Plaintiff, Robert Burse, while shopping in defendant’s Winn-Dixie store, was injured when he slipped and fell upon a plastic container top from a six pack of beer. Plaintiff received an award of $7,500 despite the defendant’s objection that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to impute constructive knowledge of the hazard to the store owner.
Defendant-appellant urges that the trial court should have granted their motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, and failing to do that, upon reserving ruling on such motion, should have granted it subsequent to the jury’s verdict in behalf of the plaintiff. We disagree.
Fundamentally, the issue presented is one of fact. The record reveals that it was commonplace for persons to come into the store and purchase individual cans of beer which they broke out of six packs, which often resulted in the accumulation of excess plastic container tops on the beer shelf. It was also shown that there was no suitable container furnished in the vicinity where trash might be disposed of. Although the manager of the store testified that he was responsible for keeping the premises clean, he had not inspected the area nor where the plaintiff fell for an hour and a half before the accident. Further, an examination of the packaging container which the plaintiff slipped upon revealed that it was filthy and scuffed up. Under these circumstances, it is foreseeable that container tops might end up on the floor, and in the instant case the evidence leads to the reasonable inference that the container that was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time so as to constitute notice. This accords with the principles announced in Jenkins v. Brackin, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 589; Haley v. Harvey Building, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 330; Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 730; Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 5.
*268In our view the testimony on the plaintiff’s case taken as a whole is such that several inferences may be drawn, thus presenting a jury question, and that appellant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the trial judge erred in denying the motion for directed verdict. McHargue v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 283. Accordingly, we find no error and therefore,
Affirm.
WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973)…Fla.1970). . 79 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1955). . 254 So. 2d 44 (Fla.App.1st 1971). . Id. at 45. . See note 1, supra. . 171 So. 2d at 591. . See note 2, supra. . 234 So. 2d at 134. . 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla.App.3rd 1972). . Id. at 863. . Id. at 864. . 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla.App.4th 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1970). . 253 So. 2d 268 (Fla.App.2d 1971). . Id. at 269.…
-
Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…hat the substance on the floor through which plaintiff fell was sticky, dusty and dirty. This indicates that the substance was present on the floor for a sufficient period of time to constitute notice. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 266. Second, defendant’s manager stated he made periodic inspections by walking through the store to check for any irregularities such as dangerous floor conditions and security mat [*864] ters, as well as other possible hinderances and impediments to t…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…y fell may be relied upon to circumstantially prove that the perilous state existed long enough to charge a defendant with constructive notice. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1970). Here, testimony that the liquid was dirty and scuffed and had several tracks running through it was, in our opinion, adequate to impute constructive notice of the hazardous condition to…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Phoebe C. Trusell et vir, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- Jenkins v. Brackin, 171 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Ocie M. Haley v. Harvey Bldg., Inc., 168 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Am. Express Co. v. Habersin Camera Shops, Inc., 209 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- McHARGUE v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 209 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)