ESTHER S. FRIEDMAN AND REUBEN FRIEDMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BISCAYNE RESTAURANT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A JUNIORS' RESTAURANT, AND OR JUNIORS' INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A JUNIORS' RESTAURANT, 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 Friedmans appealed a directed verdict granted in favor of a restaurant after the plaintiff wife was injured when she slipped on a foreign substance on the restaurant floor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the restaurant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.
The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the plaintiffs' negligence claim because there was no evidence showing how the foreign substance got on the floor, how long it remained there, or whether the defendants knew or should have known of its presence.
[1] A directed verdict is proper when there is no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support a plaintiff's cause of action.
[2] In a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must present evidence showing how the substance got on the floor, how long it had been there, or that the defendant knew or should ha…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The evidence failed to show how the foreign substance got on the floor, how long it had remained on the floor or whether the defendants knew or should have known it was on the floor.”
This establishes the critical deficiency in the plaintiffs' case—insufficient evidence on the essential elements of negligence, specifically the defendant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff wife sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell on a slippery foreign substance on the floor of the defendant's restaurant while …
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 Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs appeal a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff wife sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell in the defendant’s restaurant on a slippery foreign substance on the floor as she was being led by the hostess to a table where the plaintiffs were to have dinner. The complaint charged that defendants were negligent in that they negligently and carelessly maintained the floor area of the restaurant by placing on, or allowing a foreign substance to gather on, the floor, making it dangerous and unsafe for patrons to walk to their tables. It was further charged that the dangerous condition was known, or should have been known, to the defendant and that the defendant was negligent in failing to warn plaintiff wife of the dangerous condition.
Defendants denied the allegations of negligence and affirmatively charged that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by her own negligence.
The cause was set for jury trial. However, prior to the commencement of the plaintiff’s case, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants conferred with the trial judge and plaintiff’s counsel represented to the court that the testimony at trial would be the same as that contained in the depositions. It was thereupon stipulated by counsel that the court entertain and decide a motion for directed verdict by the defendants on the basis of the testimony in the depositions. The court granted the motion for directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence or reasonable inference therefrom to support plaintiffs cause of action, and the jury could not lawfully return a verdict for the plaintiffs.
We have carefully considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the trial judge was correct in granting the motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendants. The evidence failed to show how the foreign substance *832got on the floor, how long it had remained on the floor or whether the defendants knew or should have known it was on the floor.
We agree with the trial judge that there was no evidence or reasonable inferences to support a verdict for the plaintiffs. Carl’s Market v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 789; Food Fair Stores v. Patty, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 5, overruled on other grounds Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 601.
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…hat defendant had constructive knowledge of its presence. Appellee contends that the judgment should be affirmed on such authority as Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, Fla.1961, 131 So. 2d 730; Friedman v. Biscayne Restaurant, Inc., Fla.App. 1971, 254 So. 2d 831; Bates v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 182 So. 2d 309; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Manning, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So. 2d 339. We cannot agree. The established rule in this state is that if the dangerous condition of the premises is cre…
-
Hamideh v. K-Mart Corp., 648 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…le inference, creating a presumption of notice on the part of the defendant, could not be drawn from the facts reflected by the record. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Friedman v. Biscayne Restaurant, Inc., 254 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The fact that a store employee may have been stocking shelves with shampoo bottles in the same aisle where the plaintiff slipped and fell on a substance that may have been shampoo is insufficient, without more, to create an infer…
-
194TH St. Hotel Corp. v. Hopf, 383 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…bby. The defendant claims the right .to a directed verdict on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that it had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the moisture on the floor. See, e. g., Friedman v. Biscayne Restaurant, Inc., 254 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The correctness of this position is essentially irrelevant because the record shows both that the surface upon which the fall occurred had become dangerously worn, smooth, and therefore slippery, see Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop, 2…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- Carls Mkts., Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1953)