Wilson v. The Krystal Co.
Decision Date | 16 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 5D02-2499.,5D02-2499. |
Citation | 844 So.2d 827 |
Parties | Dena WILSON, Appellant, v. THE KRYSTAL COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard Prospect, P.A., Port Orange, for Appellant.
Jamie Billotte Moses and Richard W. Smith of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
This is an appeal brought by Dena Wilson from the denial of a motion for new trial of her negligence action against the appellee, The Krystal Company ("Krystal"). Because we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we affirm.
Encapsulated, the testimony indicates that Ms. Wilson blacked out and fell through a plate glass window of a restaurant operated by Krystal. Ms. Wilson alleged that Krystal was negligent in installing plate glass, rather than safety glass, and was, therefore, in violation of various building codes and ordinances. At the time that she fainted Ms. Wilson was dehydrated and her blood sugar was low, as she had nothing to eat or drink since breakfast. She spent much of the day in the hot sun, and a short time before the incident, she felt faint and had to sit down. She chose to sit on a small wall under a canopy near the windows outside of the Krystal restaurant. When she began to feel better, she stood up to continue her activities. She began to feel lightheaded again, and with the aid of her companion tried to return to the area outside of the restaurant. When she neared the restaurant, however, she blacked out and fell through the window, sustaining injuries. Over her objection, the trial court gave a comparative negligence instruction. The jury returned a verdict for Ms. Wilson, but determined that she was 80% negligent. Ms. Wilson's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied.
148 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1962). The existence of that notice or knowledge, however, presents an issue for the jury. Indeed, a driver's unsubstantiated affidavit that he had migraines and low blood sugar that must have caused him suddenly to black out does not support a summary judgment, and presents a question for the trier of fact to resolve. See Schurer v. Koch, 741 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
This same theory applies by analogy to the present case. Ms. Wilson failed to eat or drink beyond a sip of a soft...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc.
...processes by which the ultimate decision of the triers of fact, the jurors, is reached.") (citations omitted); Wilson v. The Krystal Co., 844 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("A trial court is given broad discretionary latitude to grant or deny a motion for new trial because of its direc......
-
Bachman v. Oliveros, Case No. 5D18-3376
...grant or deny a motion for new trial because of its direct and superior vantage point of the trial proceedings." Wilson v. Krystal Co. , 844 So. 2d 827, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Although it has been occasionally said that a stronger showing of error is required to reverse an order granting ......
-
Tenny v. Allen, 5D03-93.
...A motion for new trial should not be granted unless no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict rendered. Wilson v. The Krystal Co., 844 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). When reviewing an order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of ......
-
Feagle v. Purvis, 5D03-3466.
...defendant suffered a loss of consciousness or capacity. See, e.g., Bridges v. Speer, 79 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla.1955); Wilson v. The Krystal Co., 844 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). 2. The loss of consciousness or capacity occurred before the defendant's purportedly negligent conduct. See Malcol......