Freeman v. Bellsouth Telecommunications

Decision Date16 March 2007
Docket NumberNo. 1D06-2653.,1D06-2653.
Citation954 So.2d 45
PartiesJoyce H. FREEMAN and William Freeman, Appellants, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. and Panhandle Boring & Trenching, Inc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Wm. Jemison Mims, Jr., Christopher M. Vlachos, and Troy A. Rafferty of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner, & Proctor, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellants.

John R. Hargrove, W. Kent Brown, Paula J. Phillips, Mark R. Boyd, and Carol A. Gart of Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Joyce and William Freeman, plaintiffs below, appeal a final judgment the trial court entered against them after granting the motion for directed verdict filed by appellee BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Because there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to decide whether BellSouth was on constructive notice of the dangerous condition that resulted in the injury in this case, we reverse and remand with instructions to the circuit court to reinstate the verdict and enter final judgment for the Freemans.1

On January 3, 2000, after they finished exercising at an elementary school track, Joyce Freeman and her daughter were unable to start their car, so Mrs. Freeman began walking to a convenience store to call her husband for assistance. It was dark as she walked along a grassy right-of-way, and she fell into an open manhole containing about seven feet of water. She was briefly trapped in the water-filled lower chamber but was finally able to find the vertical tunnel and wedge herself into it with her head above water. She spent two hours in the hole, calling for help, until her husband and daughter found her and summoned the fire department to extract her from the hole.

A jury found Mrs. Freeman to have been 22 percent negligent and awarded her $149,587 and her husband $15,000. The jury found BellSouth, the owner of the manhole and the easement around it, to have been 78 percent negligent, and appellee Panhandle Boring & Trenching, Inc., which repaired and maintained BellSouth's manholes in Escambia County, not negligent. The trial court granted BellSouth's post-trial motion for directed verdict, concluding that the Freemans had failed to prove that BellSouth had constructive notice that the manhole cover had been removed, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' case. This was error as a matter of law. See, e.g., Flagstar Co., Inc. v. Cole-Ehlinger, 909 So.2d 320, 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (observing that the standard of review of a ruling on a motion for directed verdict is de novo).

The trial court correctly found Joyce Freeman to be a public invitee on the right-of-way.2 See Luke v. Indian River County, 639 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). As such, BellSouth owed her a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to warn of any concealed peril that BellSouth should have known of through the exercise of reasonable care. BellSouth was required to eliminate any dangerous conditions of which it had actual or constructive notice. City of Milton v. Broxson, 514 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing "defects which have been in existence so long that they could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable care, and repaired." City of Jacksonville v. Foster, 41 So.2d 548, 549 (Fla.1949). Accord Castano v. City of Miami, 840 So.2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

The record discloses sufficient evidence that BellSouth had constructive notice that the manhole cover had been dislodged. It is evident from a photograph of the manhole area taken the night of Freeman's fall that the lid had been off for some time. The thick grass and weeds growing both over the edge of the cover where it lay dislodged, and down into the hole, are distinguishing features of the photograph that provided the jury with a basis for inferring that the cover had been off the hole for more...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Kohl v. Kohl
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 1, 2014
    ...upon the defendant's knowledge apply the “actual or constructive knowledge” standard. See, e.g., Freeman v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 954 So.2d 45, 46–47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (owner's duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition); Williams v. Joseph L. Rozier Machine......
  • Richitelli v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 22, 2023
    ... ... Fla., Inc. , 194 So.3d 424, 427-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016))); ... Freeman v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. , 954 So.2d 45, ... 46-47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Constructive ... ...
  • Lomack v. Mowrey
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 2009
    ...exercise of reasonable care.* See DiMarco v. Colee Court, Inc., 976 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Freeman v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 954 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Williams v. Madden, 588 So.2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In their motion for summary judgment, appellees argu......
  • Ringelman v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2017
    ...Case law supports the proposition that counsel's representations during oral argument are binding. See Freeman v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 954 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("At oral argument, BellSouth stipulated that if this court were to reverse on appeal, BellSouth would abide by ......
  • 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