Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., WINN-DIXIE
| Decision Date | 22 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | WINN-DIXIE,No. 81-584,81-584 |
| Citation | 407 So.2d 389 |
| Parties | Luerain FRISON, Appellant, v.STORES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Milton A. Friedman, Judge.
Kosdan & Pariser and Brian W. Pariser, Miami, for appellant.
Vernis, Bowling, West, Montalto & Goodman and Stephen N. Montalto, Coconut Grove, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ, and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Directing a verdict for the defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., the trial judge declared that a dangerous condition would be created only if the glass bottles of Pine-Sol (a slippery liquid cleanser) were displayed on the defendant's grocery store shelves so that more than fifty per cent of the three-to-four-inch base of the bottles overlapped the edges of the shelves. Under this restrictive view of "dangerous condition," only store customers caught in an avalanche of Pine-Sol bottles falling to the floor as a result of imbalance and gravity could possibly recover for injuries. Since Mrs. Frison was admittedly not the victim of freely falling bottles, but instead, while reaching for a less accessible, smaller bottle of Pine-Sol, she apparently dislodged the larger bottles which were stacked so as to protrude an inch beyond the edges of the shelves, she was denied recovery by the trial court.
Winn-Dixie's argument, here and below, that the bottles could not fall down by themselves is hardly a basis for a finding that, as a matter of law, the store was not negligent, even if the plaintiff herself was negligent. See Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Whether Winn-Dixie was negligent in shelving the glass bottles so that they precariously protruded an inch beyond the edges of the shelves is most assuredly a jury question. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered upon the directed verdict in favor of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 89-2542
...See Valdes v. Faby Enterprises, Inc., 483 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 491 So.2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Keene presented competent evidence to prove each element of the negligence charged against Chicago Bridge, and was en......
-
Zuccaro v. Zuccaro
... ... Inc., Miami, for appellee ... Before HUBBART, ... ...
-
Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc.
...the jury. Valdes v. Faby Enter., Inc., 483 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 491 So.2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We find that Xtra did not meet its "burden of conclusively showing the absence of genuine issues of material fa......
-
Klaue v. Galencare, Inc., 96-02532
...See Valdes v. Faby Enters., Inc., 483 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 491 So.2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Moreover, given the unrefuted testimony of Mrs. Klaue, genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved regarding w......