Ochlockonee Banks Restaurant, Inc. v. Colvin, 96-3596
| Citation | 700 So.2d 1229 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3596,96-3596 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1562 OCHLOCKONEE BANKS RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED, A Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Rita COLVIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Eric G. Belsky and Arthur J. LaPlante of Hinshaw & Culbertson, Miami, for appellant.
William D. Hall, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Ochlockonee Banks Restaurant, defendant in the trial court, asserts that the trial court erred in (1) denying the defendant's motion for directed verdict on the question of liability, and (2) granting appellee's (Rita Colvin) motion for new trial solely on the issue of noneconomic damages. We find no error as to the first issue, but determine that a new trial is required as to both liability and damages.
Appellee, Rita Colvin, was injured in a slip-and-fall accident which occurred at 2:30 a.m. on October 12, 1992, at the Riverfront Saloon, a restaurant owned by Ochlockonee Banks Restaurant, Inc., appellant. While she was country and western dancing, spinning and twirling around the dance floor, appellee slipped and fell, breaking her ankle as well as sustaining other injuries.
Several witnesses testified as to the events surrounding the accident, including Ms. Colvin's dance partner, Otha Reddick, and others who were dancing on the dance floor at the time or were watching the dancers at the time. The testimony of witnesses ranged from testimony which indicated that Ms. Colvin may have slipped in a "very large damp spot" about two feet square, to an indication that Ms. Colvin may have "tripped over her own two feet." The plaintiff denied tripping over her own feet, but admitted that she had not seen any wet spot on the floor prior to the accident, and that, as other witnesses also testified, she did not know where the liquid had come from or how long it had existed.
The key testimony came from a witness, Ray Carlton, who testified that he saw the plaintiff slip and fall in liquid that appeared to come from a beer bottle that had been knocked from the railing immediately surrounding the dance floor. Mr. Carlton, however, did not see the bottle drop or know how long the liquid had been there.
There was also testimony as to the policy of the Riverfront Saloon that no drinks were to be taken on the dance floor, and that the policy was strictly enforced. There was testimony that the management had people monitoring the floor to make sure dancers did not come to the floor with drinks, that the dance floor was not slippery, and that there had been no previous problems of accidents of this nature on the dance floor. One of the restaurant employees testified that there were occasional spills at the Riverfront Saloon, but these were usually immediately taken care of either by the security personnel or other restaurant personnel, and that the procedure was routinely to mop or towel up spills immediately. The restaurant did, however, let people sit at the railing and drink as well as leave their drinks unattended on the railing while they were on the dance floor. The jury also heard the deposition testimony of plaintiff's treating physician.
The appellee/defendant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, which was denied. At the close of all evidence, the defendant renewed its motion for directed verdict. The trial court reserved ruling on the motion, stating that it would be taken up again after trial if that was necessary. The case was submitted to the jury.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding the defendant 100 percent liable for the plaintiff's injury and the plaintiff zero percent comparatively negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiff $25,133.16 for past medical expenses, which was the exact amount of the medical bills which had been admitted into evidence. The plaintiff was awarded nothing for her claims of pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience or loss of the capacity to enjoy life.
Following trial, the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the issues of past and future noneconomic damages alone, arguing that the verdict's award of zero damages was inadequate as a matter of law. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp.
...in manner in which it hung radios from hook so as to create a dangerous condition was jury question); Ochlockonee Banks Rest., Inc. v. Colvin, 700 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (where jury could have determined that the defendant's negligence consisted of allowing a dangerous conditi......
-
Dolphin Cruise Line v. Stassinopoulos, No. 97-1542
...law. See id. at 193; see also Gaines v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 701 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ochlockonee Banks Restaurant, Inc. v. Colvin, 700 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Een v. Rice, 637 So.2d 331, 332-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Daigneault v. Gache, 624 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 4......
-
Cabrera v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
...708, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ; Gaines v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 701 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ; Ochlockonee Banks Rest., Inc. v. Colvin, 700 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ; Een v. Rice, 637 So. 2d 331, 332-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ; Harrison v. Hous. Res. Mgmt., Inc., 588 So. 2d......
-
FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos
...non-economic damages." Food Lion v. Jackson , 712 So.2d 800, 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ; see also Ochlockonee Banks Rest., Inc. v. Colvin , 700 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that verdict of liability that awarded past medical expenses only and nothing for pain and suffering cl......