41 Fla. L. Weekly D121b
Torts
— Premises liability — Fall on stairs — Error to enter directed verdict in
favor of defendant where there was conflicting evidence as to causation —
Although plaintiff could not testify as to exactly what made her fall, expert
evidence and photos of steps established that steps on which plaintiff fell
were in disrepair
— Premises liability — Fall on stairs — Error to enter directed verdict in
favor of defendant where there was conflicting evidence as to causation —
Although plaintiff could not testify as to exactly what made her fall, expert
evidence and photos of steps established that steps on which plaintiff fell
were in disrepair
HEIDI CHRISTAKIS, Appellant, v. TIVOLI TERRACE, LLC,
Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D14-3378. January 6, 2016. Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael
Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-017744 (12). Counsel: Marcus J. Susen and Justin
R. Parafinczuk of Koch Parafinczuk & Wolf, P.A., for appellant. Julie Bork
Glassman and Eduardo Cosio of Cosio Law Group, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D14-3378. January 6, 2016. Appeal from the
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael
Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-017744 (12). Counsel: Marcus J. Susen and Justin
R. Parafinczuk of Koch Parafinczuk & Wolf, P.A., for appellant. Julie Bork
Glassman and Eduardo Cosio of Cosio Law Group, Coral Gables, for appellee.
(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:
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.
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.
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.)
verdict. (WARNER, MAY, JJ., and GILLEN, JEFFREY DANA, Associate Judge,
concur.)
* *
*
*