LEWIS v. SUN TIME Corp. d/b/a Prime Time

Decision Date06 December 2010
Docket NumberNo. 3D09-746.,3D09-746.
PartiesSandra LEWIS, Appellant, v. SUN TIME CORPORATION d/b/a Prime Time and Waldorf Towers, Ltd., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

47 So.3d 872

Sandra LEWIS, Appellant,
v.
SUN TIME CORPORATION d/b/a Prime Time and Waldorf Towers, Ltd., Appellees.

No. 3D09-746.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Oct. 20, 2010.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 6, 2010.


47 So.3d 873

Greenspoon Marder, Neal Hirschfield and Bradley A. Ross, Ft. Lauderdale; Steven M. Goldsmith, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Cozen O'Connor and Raquel M. Fernandez, Miami, for appellee Sun Time Corporation; Conroy Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer and Hinda Klein, Hollywood, for appellee Waldorf Towers, Ltd.

Before COPE and SALTER, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

On June 1, 2006, the plaintiff Sandra Lewis fell on a rain soaked outside flight of terrazzo steps while leaving a hotel-restaurant on Miami Beach. She sued the operators and now appeals from a jury verdict and judgment for the defendants. She raises what is essentially a single issue, the claim that the trial court erred in permitting evidence that there had been no prior falls since the building was constructed and opened as the Waldorf Hotel in 1937. While the issue is far from unsubstantial we are compelled to disagree.

[1] It is well recognized that a no-accident history of the location of a premises liability case may be admitted into evidence for a variety of purposes including the central one of showing that the area was not in fact dangerous or defective. See Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla.1997) (considering absence of similar accidents in determining whether fact issues remained); Cent. Theatres v. Wilkinson, 154 Fla. 589, 18 So.2d 755 (1944) (evidence that for several years there had been no accident from shooting at location admissible); State, Dep't of Transp. v. Patterson, 594 So.2d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]ppellant was entitled to have the jury consider that the records it still maintained revealed no bicycle accidents in the tunnel prior to the present accident.”); McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (relying in part on evidence that no one had fallen over the concrete blocks at issue during the preceding seventeen years); see also Doe v. U.S., 718 F.2d 1039, 1043 (11th Cir.1983) (applying Florida law and approving evidence that for a number of years before the incident, there had never been a crime against a person committed on the premises); see generally Kenneth S. Broun, 1 McCormick on Evidence § 200 n. 34 (6th ed. 2009) (“A large number of cases recognize that lack of other accidents may be admissible to show (1)[an] absence of the defect or condition alleged, (2) the lack of a causal relationship between the injury and the defect or condition charged, (3) the nonexistence of an unduly dangerous situation, or (4) want of knowledge (or of grounds to realize) the danger.” (footnotes omitted)) 1 ; 23 Fla. Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 186 (2010); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 564 (2010).

47 So.3d 874

We conclude that reversal is not justified by the challenged ruling because in the last analysis, we cannot find the trial court abused the discretion it is said to have:

(1) in the admission of evidence in general, see Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 852 n. 51 (Fla.2001); Fla. Inst. for Neurologic Rehab., Inc. v. Marshall, 943 So.2d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); LaMarr v. Lang 796 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001);

(2) more specifically, in the admission of testimony concerning the prior safety history of the site in question, that is, previous accidents or their absence, see Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 299 So.2d 590, 594 (Fla.1974); Williams v. Madden 588 So.2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see generally cases collected, Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence of Absence of Other Accidents or Injuries at Place Where Injury or Damage Occurred, 10 A.L.R. 5th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Las Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 4D16–231
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 19 d3 Julho d3 2017
    ... ... Kim's blood alcohol content at the time of the incident was later determined to be three ... Fla. Power Corp. , 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (footnote ... 1997) ; see also Lewis v. Sun Time Corp. , 47 So.3d 872, 873 (Fla. 3d ... ...
  • Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. Britt
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 d3 Setembro d3 2017
    ... ... Clark, 414 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (time provision of Rule 1.260(a) is triggered by the recording or ... Lewis v. Sun Time Corp., 47 So.3d 872, 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ... ...
  • Chavez v. Mcdonald's Rest. of Fla., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 26 d2 Março d2 2013
    ... ... Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992); Wolford, 861 So.2d at ... Lewis v. Sun Time Corp., 47 So.3d 872, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA ... ...
  • Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. Britt
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 6 d3 Setembro d3 2017
    ... ... Clark, 414 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (time provision of Rule 1.260(a) is triggered by the recording or ... Lewis v. Sun Time Corp., 47 So.3d 872, 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).Nor ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT