Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Jacksonville, WINN-DIXIE
| Decision Date | 31 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | PEPSI-COLA,No. 32864,WINN-DIXIE,32864 |
| Citation | 160 So.2d 102 |
| Parties | STORES, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, v.BOTTLING COMPANY OF JACKSONVILLE, Inc., a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Barnes & Slater, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Harry T. Gray, Francis P. Conroy and Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for respondent.
We assumed jurisdiction of this cause under Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A., because of the view that a statement by the District Court of Appeal in its opinion in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, Fla.App., 153 So.2d 45, conflicted with an opinion of this court in Smith and Armstead v. Croom, et al., 7 Fla. 81.
The better to understand the point, we give a brief digest of the salient facts. The petitioner owns and operates a grocery store in which is sold, in bottles, a beverage known as Pepsi Cola. The bottler, respondent, delivered to petitioner's place of business several cases of Pepsi Cola which were stacked by the respondent in petitioner's store in an unsafe manner so that one of the stacks collapsed and fell injuring a customer. The injured person sued both petitioner and respondent and was awarded a judgment in substantial amount. Of course, the method of displaying the product in the store must have been obvious to the storekeeper who, upon occasion, had complained to the respondent about the failure to use 'dividers' and substantial cartons and about the height to which the containers were stacked.
The original plaintiff sued petitioner on the theory that it negligently permitted the condition created by respondent to prevail, thereby creating an unsafe place for the plaintiff to shop, and the plaintiff proceeded against the respondent for negligently arranging the display.
The petitioner, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., filed a cross claim against its co-defendant, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., seeking indemnity on the theory that the latter breached its duty so to safely arrange its display that the customers of the former would not be injured and that Pepsi-Cola thereby became liable to Winn-Dixie for loss suffered by Winn-Dixie. When the trial court announced the intention of directing a verdict against Winn-Dixie on its cross claim for indemnity from Pepsi-Cola Winn-Dixie suffered an involuntary non-suit against it and appealed to the District Court of Appeal where the judgment against both petitioner and respondent was affirmed as was the ruling rejecting the cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Power Corp. v. Taylor
...was discussed in Winn-Dixie, Inc. v. Fellows, Fla.App.1st 1963, 153 So.2d 45, as modified, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Jacksonville, Inc., Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 102, where one of Winn-Dixie's customers was injured when a carton of beverages fell to the floor as a res......
-
Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963), modified by elimination of one sentence, 160 So.2d 102 (Fla.1964). Florida Wire asserts that the only way to classify a tortfeasor's negligence as active or passive is to weigh the relative fault of th......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Western Waterproofing Co. of America
...See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963), as modified, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Jacksonville, 160 So.2d 102 (Fla.1964); Florida Power Corporation v. Taylor, 332 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA It is hornbook law that in ruling upon a motio......
-
Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. B & P Restaurant Corp.
...Motor Sales, Inc. v. Lakin, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 672; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 45, modified, Fla., 160 So.2d 102. We have carefully considered the record on appeal and viewed in the light most favorable to the appellant 1 we have concluded that the tria......