Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Perez v. Ritz-Carlton (Virgin Islands), Inc. (virginislands, 2013-08-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Perez v. Ritz-Carlton (Virgin Islands), Inc.
virginislands · 2013 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 1998); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Castano v. City of Miami
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Although a plaintiff may introduce evidence of prior accidents, maintenance, and conditions to show notice of an ongoing problem creating a dangerous condition, see Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla.1984); Firth v. Marhoefer, 406 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we find that the trial court acted within its discretion when it limited the plaintiff's evidence temporally to the six months prior to the accident and geographically to the block of sidewalk where the plaintiff fell.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Marsan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Serv. v. Palmieri, 559 So.2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(holding that constructive notice may be established “by showing that the condition occurred with regularity and, consequently, was foreseeable.”); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that “a plaintiff may use evidence of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of prior or subsequent accidents to prove constructive notice of the dangerous character of a condition.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
Fla. · 2001 · confidence medium
See generally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reggie, 714 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moyer v. Reynolds
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Because there is evidence that this policy was violated and that the violation may have had some causal connection to the accident in question, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless.") (citation omitted); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that "appellee's safety manual, with its repeated warnings about the hazards and consequences of debris left on the floor, should be allowed in evidence for the purpose of showing notice and foreseeability.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reggie (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Maryland Maintenance Service, Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075,1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kitsopoulos v. Mathers Bridge Restaurant, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enterprises, Inc., 560 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 567 So.2d 435 (Fla.1990); Maryland Maintenance, supra; Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla.1984); Firth v. Marhoefer, 406 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So.2d 873, 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Newalk v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Evens v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 468 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brooks v. PHILLIP WATTS ENTER. INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Maryland Maintenance Service, Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Molinares v. El Centro Gallego, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Cohen v. Schrider, 533 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); see Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 386 So.2d 520, 522-23 (Fla. 1980); Nance v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1984); Homan v. County of Dade, 248 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fazio v. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Firth was relied upon in Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), a grocery store case, wherein the court stated: We find that the same reasoning applies in the instant case, and we hold, therefore, that the trial court, by only allowing testimony on the conditions as they existed on the day of the accident, impermissibly limited appellant's evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evens v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Nance v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
discussed Cited "see" San Miguel v. City of Miami
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (plaintiff must show that landowner had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that it existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care, the landowner should have known of it and taken remedial action); see also Newalk v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc., 610 So.2d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (same); Maryland Maint.
discussed Cited "see" Burnett v. LOWER FLA. KEYS HEALTH SYS. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d at 1076 .
discussed Cited "see" Walker v. Burdines Federated Department Stores, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, 436 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla.1984); Whitten v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 430 So.2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Williams v. Holland, 205 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
discussed Cited "see" Wynne v. Exercise Centers of Southeast Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So.2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So.2d 889 (Fla.1984); Firth v. Marhoefer, 406 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); cf. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442, 446-49 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981); Highlands Ins.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Haynes v. Lloyd
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, 436 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. den., 447 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anne E. NANCE, Appellant,
v.
WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
82-1153.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sep 6, 1983.
436 So. 2d 1075
Hendry, Hubbart and Jorgenson.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

[*1076] Daniels and Hicks and Patrice A. Talisman, Rentz & Rust, Miami, for appellant.

Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant in this slip and fall case contests the denial of her motion for a new trial following a jury trial which found for appellee Winn Dixie. Because we find that prejudicial error occurred below, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant had just purchased four one-half gallon bottles of orange juice and was near the exit door of appellee supermarket when she fell and injured herself. Appellant testified that she believed she slipped on a cash register receipt which she found stuck to the bottom of her shoe. Appellee's arguments below were that appellant's fall was caused by her own negligence in wearing high heeled shoes while shopping and that she failed to prove that appellee had either actual or constructive notice of the cash register tape on the floor, thereby failing to prove that appellee was negligent. Appellant responds on appeal by arguing that the trial court precluded her from proving appellee's constructive notice by refusing to allow testimony on prior accidents and conditions and by refusing to allow appellee's safety manual to be admitted into evidence. She had also requested an instruction on constructive notice which the trial court refused to give.

It is well settled that in order to recover for injuries received in a slip and fall accident, a plaintiff must show either that the storekeeper had actual notice of the condition or that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care the storekeeper should have known of it and taken action to remedy it or to guard the plaintiff from harm therefrom. This latter fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1973); Camina v. Parliament Insurance Co., 417 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gaidymowicz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 371 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., 284 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1974); Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Moroni, 113 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), cert. denied, 115 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1959).

It is equally well settled that a plaintiff may use evidence of the occurrence or non-occurrence of prior or subsequent accidents to prove constructive notice of the dangerous character of a condition. Perret v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 299 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1974); Lasar Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Reinhart v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 422 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wood v. Walt Disney World Co., 396 So.2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Corbett v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 375 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 1980); Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 680 (Fla. 1977); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Friddle, 290 So.2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev'd, 306 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1974) (adopting dissenting opinion).

[*1077] In Firth v. Marhoefer, 406 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to disallow testimony on prior maintenance and conditions of an elevator to prove the landlord's constructive notice of an ongoing problem creating a dangerous condition. We find that the same reasoning applies in the instant case, and we hold, therefore, that the trial court, by only allowing testimony on the conditions as they existed on the day of the accident, impermissibly limited appellant's evidence. It is for the jury to decide whether cash register tapes on the floor of a supermarket is an ongoing problem, and thus, a foreseeable danger of which appellee has constructive notice. Firth v. Marhoefer, supra; Cassel v. Price, 396 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1981); Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The jury should also receive an instruction on what must be shown in order to find constructive notice.

For the same reason, we find that appellee's safety manual, with its repeated warnings about the hazards and consequences of debris left on the floor, should be allowed in evidence for the purpose of showing notice and foreseeability. The jury should decide whether the manual constitutes some indication of the care required under the circumstances, Reese v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 360 So.2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dism., 366 So.2d 884 (Fla. 1978), and whether that level of care is different from the common-law duty of care a landowner owes to a business invitee. Cf. Bowes v. Lerner Shops International, Inc., 422 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.