Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Anderson
Decision Date | 25 July 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 4D12–103.,4D12–103. |
Citation | 92 So.3d 922 |
Parties | PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. Linda ANDERSON and Allen Anderson, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward G. Guedes and Larua K. Wendell of Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L., Coral Gables, for petitioner.
Ariel E. Furst and Daniel M. Grissom of Law Office of Ariel E. Furst, P.A., Miami, for respondents.
This case arises from a slip and fall at a Publix grocery store. During discovery, the plaintiff sought “any and all reports concerning the incident identified in the plaintiff's complaint.” Publix asserted a work-product privilege and its privilege log identified two documents: a report of the incident by the assistant store manager and a “customer incident witness statement” of a customer service staff associate. Both items were prepared after the plaintiff's fall, on the same day. After reviewing the reports in camera, the trial court ordered their production. Publix seeks certiorari review of that order. We grant the writ and quash the order.
certainly are not prepared because of some morbid curiosity about how people fall at the market. Experience has shown all retail stores that people who fall in their stores try to be compensated for their injuries. Experience has also shown those stores that bogus or frivolous or exaggerated claims might be made. A potential defendant's right to fully investigate and memorialize the results of the investigation should not be restricted any more than should a potential plaintiff's. Our system of advocacy and dispute settlement by trial mandates that each side should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda
...then those communications would certainly be stilted, unrevealing and thus self-defeating in their purpose.Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So.3d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In this case, plaintiff has been allowed to avail herself of the ordinary tools of discovery to obtain rele......
-
Int'l House of Pancakes v. Robinson
...2009 was “in anticipation of litigation” that was “reasonably foreseeable.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4); Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So.3d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Experience has shown ... that people [injured on a business premises] try to be compensated for their injurie......
-
Marshalls of M.A., Inc. v. Witter
...Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).As the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted in Publix Super Markets., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So.3d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), reports created after a slip and fall has been reported:certainly are not prepared because of some morbid......
-
Selton v. Nelson
...by counsel in anticipation of litigation are generally protected by the work-product privilege. See Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So.3d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; Honey Transp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 893 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Although a party may be ordered to provide ......