DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, D/B/A METRO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
MATTIE WARE, 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.
Affirmed judgment for plaintiff in personal injury action against transit authority; evidence of driver's knowledge of foreign substance on bus floor and failure to clean bus before service supported jury verdict.
Evidence of the driver's actual knowledge of a foreign substance on the bus floor and the nature of the substance indicating it would have been discovered through proper cleaning before service was sufficient to support a jury verdict for the plaintiff.
[1] Evidence of a bus driver's actual knowledge of a foreign substance on the bus floor, combined with evidence that the substance would have been discovered through proper c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee was injured when she fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a Dade County Metro Transit Authority bus.…
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 Proffer Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dade County as the Metro Transit Authority was defendant in an action for personal injuries by the appellee. The injury occurred on a transit authority bus. The points presented on this appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the plaintiff claim 1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, 2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial, and 3) that the trial judge erred in denying a proffer of testimony by defendant.
We hold that in each instance no error has been shown. As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the record reveals evidence which if believed by the jury would prove the driver’s actual knowledge of the foreign substance on the floor of the bus. In addition, the nature of the substance which the appellee testified caused her fall was such as to indicate that it would have been discovered if the bus had been cleaned before being placed in service. Cf. Scaccia v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 317 Mass. 245, 57 N.E. 2d 761 (1944). As to the denial of the motion for mistrial, see Clark v. Yellow Cab Company of Miami, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So. 2d 39. No error appears upon the denial of appellant’s proffer. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 406.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marleen Gayle v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 397 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…where there were inferences that the substance had been in the stairwell for a sufficient length of time to have been observed and removed. Packer v. Winston Towers One Hundred Association, Inc., 377 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Dade County v. Ware, 295 So. 2d 360 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1974). The summary final judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1953)
- Clark v. Yellow CAB Co. OF Miami, 195 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)