Watts v. Mantooth
| Decision Date | 01 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 6458,6458 |
| Citation | 196 So.2d 230 |
| Parties | Charles B. WATTS and Pauline C. Watts, his wife, Appellants, v. Ethel MANTOOTH and Walter Mantooth, her husband, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John J. O'Riorden, of Dart, Bell & Dickinson, Sarasota, for appellants.
Gerald C. Surfus, of Stinnett, Surfus, Korp & Payne, Sarasota, for appellees.
The appellants appeal a final judgment entered in favor of the appellees pursuant to a jury verdict.
This is a bathtub 'slip and fall' case involving injuries sustained by plaintiff-appellee Mrs. Ethel Mantooth, a house guest of the defendant- appellants Charles and Pauline Watts, while visiting in their home on February 22, 1961. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The facts leading up to the injury are not in dispute. Plaintiff, Mrs. Ethel Mantooth, while bathing in defendants' bathroom, fell and sustained injuries when a bathmat on which she was standing slipped from under her feet.
In plaintiff's complaint it is alleged that the defendants' daughter prior to the date of the above accident had also fallen when this same mat had slipped from under her while preparing to shower. It is alleged that the defendants' daughter thereafter informed her mother of this incident which plaintiff asserts imputes actual knowledge to the defendants of the dangerous condition of this mat. The complaint further alleges that since the mat which caused the defendants' daughter to fall was the same mat involved in plaintiff's injjry the defendants were negligent in their failure to warn plaintiff of its dangerous condition.
Defendants denied negligence and asserted the affirmative defenses of sole negligence and contributory negligence.
In its pretrial order the trial court ordered that the issues of liability and damages would be severed and decreed separate trials on each of these issues. At the pretrial conference and again before the trial on liability the defendants moved for an order allowing the same jury to determine the issue of damages in the event they found liability. The trial court denied both motions.
In the first trial on liability the jury found for the plaintiff and subsequently thereto in a second trial on the issue of damages a separate jury awarded plaintiff, Ethel Mantooth, $6,000 and plaintiff, Walter Mantooth, her husband, $2,500.
Appellants' first point on appeal asserts that the trial judge committed reversible error when he ordered that the issues of liability and damages would be severed and determined by separate juries.
The record reflects the basis for the trial judge's order. Prior to trial on the issue of liability, in denying the defendants' second motion to allow the same jury to hear and decide both issues of liability and damages, the judge stated:
'The main medical doctors in this case are located in Tennessee and the granting of your motion would require the plaintiffs be put to the expense of transporting them to Sarasota to await the outcome of the liability trial and should the liability trial and against the plaintiffs, this would be wasted time on the part of the doctors and wasted money and would thus negate the advantages gained by separate trials.
'I do feel that because of the close question of liability involved in this case there should be one trial as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pan-National Fence Mfg. Co. v. Southern Metal Products, Inc.
...704; Vander Car v. Pitts, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 837; C & H Contractors, Inc. v. McKee, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 851; Watts v. Mantooth, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 230; 46 Am.Jur., Sales, § 746; Rule 1.270(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 ...
-
Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Century 21 Commodore Plaza Inc., s. 73--765
...of discretion by the court in severing the equitable issues for non-jury trial. See Florida R.C.P. 1.270(b), 30 F.S.A.; Watts v. Mantooth, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 230. The complaint in this cause seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to the validity of the special assessment l......
-
Hernandez v. Leiva
...on its own initiative, to bifurcate and continue the trial as to damages and attorney's fees. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270(b); Watts v. Mantooth, 196 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The second point raised by the seller is addressed to the trial court's award of damages to the buyer. At the time the co......
-
To b ... Or not to b ... "b ..." means bifurcation.
...and the plaintiffs damages caused by such negligence. Authority for Bifurcation Case law dating back to 1967 in Watts v. Mantooth, 196 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA), makes clear that the trial court has the discretion to bifurcate a case so long as discretion is not abused. In the Mantooth case,......