Doll v. Robbins, 73--1529
| Decision Date | 29 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1529,73--1529 |
| Citation | 303 So.2d 338 |
| Parties | John DOLL and Grace Doll, Appellants, v. Alan ROBBINS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and Robert J. Dickman, Miami, for appellants.
Adams, George, Wood, Lee, Schulte & Thompson; Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek review of an order of final judgment granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendants at the close of the plaintiffs' case during jury trial.
The plaintiff, John Doll, was shot and injured in a shooting incident on the premises of a Seven-Eleven Food Store. He filed his complaint, alleged negligence and sought compensatory and punitive damages from Alan Robbins, Assistant Manager, Lawrence Garner, Clerk, and Southland Corporation d/b/a Seven-Eleven Food Stores.
The evidence showed that on the evening of February 11, 1971, plaintiff, John Doll, and his softball teammates were customers in the subject Seven-Eleven store. A car with four men inside drove up to the store; two of them entered and defendant Garner, the clerk, observed one of them take a bottle of wine off the shelf, conceal it under his shirt and walk by the counter. When the men had left the store, Garner advised defendant, Robbins, Assistant Manager, of the shoplifting. Robbins and Garner then pursued the shoplifters outside the store. There is a conflict of testimony as to whether or not Robbins and Garner both had guns or whether either of them had a gun out at this point. One of the shoplifters relinquished a bottle of wine. The other claimed that he had not taken any. An affray broke out between the shoplifters, Robbins, and a member or member(s) of the softball team. Robbins, allegedly in fear of a race riot, pointed his gun and followed the shoplifters to their car, with gun in hand, to get their license number, whereupon they proceeded to drive away while firing their own guns. While the exact time is in dispute, a short time later, they drove past again, firing shots at the Seven-Eleven store. There is another conflict in testimony as to whether plaintiff, Doll, was shot in the first or second round of shooting, but there is no question that it was one of the shoplifters who fired the bullet hitting him in the leg.
Plaintiff-appellants contend that the court erred in entry of the directed verdict at the end of the plaintiffs' case because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that defendants were negligent in not using reasonable care to protect plaintiff, a business invitee. Appellants base this on the fact that there are instructions printed in the Seven-Eleven manual and verbally given to employees, with reference to procedures to follow regarding shoplifting, to-wit: no guns, no use of force, approach while still in store, call police. These procedures were not followed in the instant case. Robbins testified that he was never made aware of them.
The appellees contend that the directed verdict was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
...Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taylor, 94 Fla. 841, 114 So. 529 (1927); Doll v. Robbins, 303 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Kwoka v. Campbell, 296 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, 269 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA App......
-
Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
...DCA), pet. for review denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla.1981); Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Doll v. Robbins, 303 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So.2d 762 (Fla.1975). Second, the grounds relied on for the new trial order have no merit. The trial cou......
-
Ross v. Sam's Wood Shed Pub, Inc.
...whom the motion is made, resolve all conflicts in that party's favor and derive all reasonable inferences therefrom. Doll v. Robbins, 303 So.2d 338 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Wills v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Brightwell v. Beem, 90 So.2d 320 To do otherwise, as I think occurred......
-
Willis v. Putnam County, Fla.
...by himself.2 Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Brightwell v. Beem, 90 So.2d 320 (Fla.1956); Doll v. Robbins, 303 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).3 Nunziato v. P. & L. Auto Parts, Inc., 403 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Garland, 269 So.2d 7......