South Florida Beverage Corp. v. San Pedro
| Decision Date | 23 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1703,85-1703 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 50,499 So.2d 915 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 50 SOUTH FLORIDA BEVERAGE CORPORATION d/b/a Pepsi Cola Bottlers of Miami, Inc., a Florida corporation and Antonio Fernandez, Appellants, v. Mario SAN PEDRO, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Hardwick, Daniels & Hicks and Ralph O. Anderson, Miami, for appellants.
Alvarez & Gamba and Tomas F. Gamba, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Because there was conflicting evidence on the issue of the plaintiff's comparative negligence, the trial court should not have entered a judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding the jury verdict. Nunberg v. Brodsky, 224 So.2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (). The question of apportioning negligence between the plaintiff and defendant is peculiarly within the province of the jury. Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad, 130 So.2d 580 (Fla.1961) (); St. Pierre v. Public Gas Co., 423 So.2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ().
Plaintiff San Pedro brought this action against South Florida Beverage Corporation and its employee, Fernandez, alleging that Fernandez, while acting within the scope of his employment with South Florida Beverage, negligently pushed a pallet full of Pepsi-Cola bottles into his left foot, causing injuries. The defendants denied the allegations of negligence and raised the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of risk. A jury returned a verdict of $12,500 and found plaintiff fifty-two per cent at fault.
San Pedro thereafter filed a renewed motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability and a motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict, contending that there was no negligence on his part and that he should have a judgment entered in his favor for the full amount of the damages. This appeal is from a final judgment entered for San Pedro on his motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict.
The facts show that San Pedro, in the course of his employment, was in the receiving area of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall by and through Hall v. Daee, 88-1628
...denied, 479 U.S. 954, 107 S.Ct. 446, 93 L.Ed.2d 394 (1986); Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); South Florida Beverage Corporation v. San Pedro, 499 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Meli v. Dade County School Board, 490 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986); D......
-
Bonica By and Through Avant v. Dade County School Bd., 88-1804
...of his acts. Turner v. Seegar, 10 So.2d 320 (1942); Dupuis v. Heider, 113 Fla. 679, 152 So. 659 (1934); South Fla. Beverage Corp. v. San Pedro, 499 So.2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The final judgment under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to ente......