WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ELVIRA M. GARLAND AND HARVEY P. GARLAND, 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.
A grocery store customer slipped on an onion top inside a Winn-Dixie store and sued for damages. The jury awarded $9,000, and the store appealed arguing insufficient evidence of negligence; the appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that negligent failure to clean shopping baskets caused the hazard.
The jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that an onion top fell from a shopping basket that the store negligently failed to clean, and the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.
[1] A jury verdict in a slip and fall case will be affirmed if there is competent, substantial evidence to support the jury's findings.
[2] In a slip and fall case, a jury may reasonably infer negligence from facts and inferences showing a foreign object on the floor that should have been cleaned by store emp…
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“We are of the opinion that there were sufficient facts, and inferences to be drawn therefrom, from which the jury could reasonably infer that the onion top fell from a shopping basket which appellant had negligently failed to clean out.”
The core holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's negligence verdict based on the store's failure to clean baskets.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElvira Garland slipped and fell in Winn-Dixie's shopping basket area on an onion top while attempting to retrieve a basket as an incoming customer. Th…
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 Jury Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant below, appeals an adverse judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding appellees $9,000.00 in damages.
This is a typical “slip and fall case” wherein we are asked to determine whether there was competent, substantial evidence to support the jury verdict.
The factual situation as revealed by the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein indicate that the appellee Elvira M. Garland walked into appellant’s store to buy groceries. She approached the shopping basket area, a space reserved for incoming customers, skidded and slipped on something and fell to the floor, sustaining injuries. After the fall, she identified the object she slipped on as being a piece of onion top. She thought a nearby shopping basket, the one she had reached for before falling, contained some green onion tops.
The store manager, who was standing within twelve feet of the accident site, stated in his report to the company that appellee had fallen on an onion. He testified that employees of the store were to check the shopping baskets for debris before returning them to the racks for the use of incoming customers. Although there were no regular schedules for inspections, all employees were supposed to inspect the floor areas for foreign materials. Said manager did not know when the area around the baskets had last been inspected.
Appellant contends in this appeal that there was not competent, substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. It is contended that appellees failed to prove their charge of negligence. We disagree.
We are of the opinion that there were sufficient facts, and inferences to be *45drawn therefrom, from which the jury could reasonably infer that the onion top fell from a shopping basket which appellant had negligently failed to clean out. The facts constitute a jury question and were resolved by the jury adversely to appellant. It is not this court’s province to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts. The credibility of the testimony and the weight of the evidence are peculiarly jury questions, and the findings of the jury will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous. No such showing has here been made.
We have considered appellant’s remaining point of error and find it to be without merit.
The judgment appealed herein is therefore affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McLANE, RALPH M., 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)…d ERVIN and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents. . 171 So. 2d 589 (Fla.App.2d 1965). . 234 So. 2d 132 (Fla.App.4th 1970). . 227 So. 2d 745 (Fla.App.2nd 1969). . Id. at 745-746. . 238 So. 2d 561 (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.…
-
Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Blanche Cartter Banks, 287 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…ts on appeal urged by appellants for reversal, but find them to be without substantial merit. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. . Winn-Dixie Stoves, Inc. v. Garland (Fla.App.1971), 254 So. 2d 44.…