LILLIE MAE LEE AND LONNIE E. LEE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, A DELAWARE 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.
Lillie Mae Lee sued The Southland Corporation after slipping and falling on gummed tape at a 7-Eleven store entrance. The trial court granted a directed verdict for Southland, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the jury should have decided whether the tape posed a hazard from merchandise delivery.
The directed verdict was improper and should be reversed. A jury could reasonably infer that the gummed tape came from merchandise delivery and constituted a hazard to customers, making this a fact question for the jury rather than a matter of law for the judge.
[1] A directed verdict should be granted with extreme caution in a tort action, similar to the caution required for summary judgment.
[2] A jury may draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence to establish a hazard.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a tort action the trial Court should always be extremely chary in directing a verdict at trial, the same as entering a summary judgment before trial.”
Establishes the high bar for directed verdicts in tort cases and the preference for jury resolution of disputed facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Lee slipped and fell at the entrance of a 7-Eleven store owned by Southland on a Sunday. The store manager found a piece of brown gummed tape 4 t…
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 Tort Action cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case Lillie Mae Lee and Lonnie E. Lee, her husband, appeal to this Court from a judgment entered against them by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in a case wherein they were suing The South-land Corporation, a Delaware corporation, appellee here and defendant below, for injuries sustained when Mrs. Lee slipped and fell at the front entrance of a 7-Eleven store owned and operated by Southland, and an accompanying cost judgment against the Lees.
At the trial, the Lees testified that Mrs. Lee slipped on a piece of gummed tape. She stated that at the time she did not know what caused her to fall but assumed it was the piece of paper in question. Mr. *269Lee testified that the Store Manager after the accident picked up a piece of brown tape 4 to 6 inches long, from her foot. Neither knew, of course, how long the gummed tape had been on the floor, nor directly how it got there. The Store Manager stated that the only tape the 7-Eleven stores normally carried for sale was cellophane or scotch tape and that groceries and other products were normally unloaded in front of the store but that no deliveries were received on Sundays, which was the date of the accident.
The Lees tendered testimony of a former employee of 7-Eleven, one Bexley, who had worked in approximately ten different 7-Eleven stores and was familiar with their operating procedures, although he had never worked in this particular store. He stated that the uniform procedure at 7-Eleven stores was for merchandise to be unloaded at the front of the store and that gummed tape was used in packaging certain merchandise coming into the stores. The trial Court excluded the testimony of Bexley and at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case granted Southland’s motion for directed verdict, later entering final judgment and the cost judgment. The Lees appeal to this Court and contend that the case should not have been peremptorily taken from the jury. We agree and reverse.
It would serve no good purpose here to further attempt to analyze the evidence in more detail. In a tort action the trial Court should always be extremely chary in directing a verdict at trial, the same as entering a summary judgment before trial. The jury could have found as a reasonable inference that the gummed tape in question had been utilized by Southland in a previous delivery of merchandise to the store; in which event, by its very nature, it could have constituted a hazard for customers or others walking into or out of the store. This is not to even infer that such was actually the case or that the jury would necessarily have so found. It is simply to say that such was within the orbit of legal possibility. It is better that the factual issues be resolved by a jury.
Reversed.
HOBSON and MANN, JJ., 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)…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.…
-
Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…nce and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the opponent. Jenkins v. Brackin, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 589; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, Fla.App. 1969, 229 So. 2d 266; Lee v. The Southland Corporation, Fla.App. 1971, 253 So. 2d 268; Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., Fla. 1973, 281 So. 2d 302. The power to direct a verdict in a slip and fall case should be exercised with caution, and it should never be granted unless the evidence is of such a nature that under…
-
Schmidt v. Bowl Am. Fla., Inc., 358 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…a particular period of time prior to an accident may warrant an inference that the dangerous condition existed long enough so that the exercise of reasonable care would have resulted in discovery. Jenkins, supra. In Lee v. The Southland Corporation, 253 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1971), the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell in front of the defendant’s store. The District Court of Appeal reversed the directed verdict and said: “. . The jury could have found as a reasonable inference that the gumme…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence