Torts - Premises liability - Slip and fall in supermarket - No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff's request for special jury instruction or in allowing secondary evidence in form of testimony of defendant's employee who had viewed unavailable surveillance video -

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2756a

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall in supermarket — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for special jury instruction or in allowing secondary evidence in form of testimony of defendant’s employee who had viewed unavailable surveillance video

NILDA GARCIA, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-122. L.T. Case No. 12-2379. Opinion filed November 13, 2019. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Counsel: Law Offices of Alan Anchell, P.A., and Alan C. Anchell (Fort Lauderdale); Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Bard D. Rockenbach and Jeffrey V. Mansell (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes and Eric S. Kay, for appellee.

(Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) After a fall in a Publix supermarket, appellant Nilda Garcia sued appellee Publix Super Markets, Inc. for negligence, alleging that a liquid substance on an aisle floor caused her fall. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Publix, the trial court entered a final judgment for Publix.

We affirm the judgment. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion: (i) in denying Garcia’s request for a special jury instruction. See H & H Electric, Inc. v. Lopez, 967 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); and (ii) in allowing secondary evidence in the form of the testimony of a Publix employee who had viewed the unavailable surveillance video. See England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389, 400-01 (Fla. 2006).

Affirmed.

* * *

Footer