CHRISTAKIS v. TIVOLI TERRACE, LLC, 181 So.3d 579 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20160106172
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2016
Summary: PER CURIAM . We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in this negligence case involving the appellant's fall on stairs. A directed verdict is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to causation. Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P'ship, 157 So.3d 273 (Fla.2015). In this case, there was conflicting evidence as to causation, as the appellant showed that the steps on which she fell were in disrepair. Although she could not testify as to exactly what
Summary: PER CURIAM . We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in this negligence case involving the appellant's fall on stairs. A directed verdict is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to causation. Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P'ship, 157 So.3d 273 (Fla.2015). In this case, there was conflicting evidence as to causation, as the appellant showed that the steps on which she fell were in disrepair. Although she could not testify as to exactly what ..
More
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered in this negligence case involving the appellant's fall on stairs. A directed verdict is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to causation. Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P'ship, 157 So.3d 273 (Fla.2015). In this case, there was conflicting evidence as to causation, as the appellant showed that the steps on which she fell were in disrepair. Although she could not testify as to exactly what made her fall, the evidence presented by both the expert and the photos of the steps showed their damaged condition. Thus, this case is factually almost identical to Roach v. Raubar, 362 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There, the plaintiff also did not know why she fell, but photos showed that the step upon which she fell was damaged. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not building inference upon inference because the damage to the step was established:
[T]he defective condition of the step was not a presumption but must be regarded as a fact from the photographic evidence and plaintiff's testimony. Under the circumstances of this case, the jury would be entitled to find that the plaintiff's fall was occasioned by the defective condition inasmuch as the evidence shows that the fall occurred at the time and place where the defective condition existed.
Id. at 85. The same result is required in this case. The court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment upon the jury verdict.
WARNER, MAY, JJ., and GILLEN, JEFFREY DANA, Associate Judge, concur.
Source: Leagle
