Burmeister v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1729,79-1729 |
| Citation | 403 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | Arvella BURMEISTER, et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David M. Conlon, Okeechobee, for appellants.
A. Craig Cameron of Gosney, Cameron, Parsons & Marriott, P. A., Daytona Beach, for appellees.
At issue is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants in a slip and fall case. We conclude that the plaintiff adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to resolve the question of the storekeeper's constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and, consequently, we reverse.
On April 5, 1977, Mr. and Mrs. Burmeister went to shop at the Sears Roebuck store in Fort Pierce. They parked in the lot and walked toward the store entrance. Mrs. Burmeister, however, slipped and fell as she attempted to step up onto a concrete sidewalk. Her husband testified that she stepped into a gouge in the edge of the sidewalk which measured approximately twelve to fourteen inches in length and about two to three inches in depth. he also testified that he looked in the gutter and in the vicinity of the gouge but did not see any debris. Though he had earlier stated in his deposition that the gouge "was new, sort of new, it was fresh," he qualified this statement at trial by testifying, "It wasn't old looking ... I can tell if it was fairly new but not real new."
Defendants moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case and again at the conclusion of the entire case. The trial court, however, reserved ruling and submitted the case to the jury. The verdict was for the plaintiff with a finding that Mrs. Burmeister had been thirty per cent negligent. At a post-trial hearing, the court vacated the verdict and granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
It is well accepted that a storekeeper must exercise ordinary or reasonable care to see that those portions of the premises which persons may be expected to use are reasonably safe. Unquestionably, this duty extends to the approaches to the premises. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Petterson, 291 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). But, "(i)n order to recover, a plaintiff must show either that the ... (storekeeper) had actual notice of the condition or that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care the ... (storekeeper) should have known of it and taken action to remedy it or guard the plaintiff from harm therefrom."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...Inc., 281 So.2d 302 (Fla.1973); Camina v. Parliament Insurance Co., 417 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gaidymowicz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, ......
-
Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes
...inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellants, the non-moving parties. See Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Applying this standard to the case at bar, we find that the evidence will support a reasonable inference th......
-
Kolosky v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...to the [non-moving parties] and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in their favor." Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citation omitted). In slip and fall cases, Florida courts take the position that "[t]he power to direct a v......
-
Emmons v. Baptist Hosp.
...to the non-moving party. Kolosky v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 472 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).3 Judge Cobb dissented in Merritt on the grounds that the fire code rule, in his view, was not applicable and, th......