Ameisen v. Royal Continental Hotels Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ameisen v. Royal Continental Hotels Corp.

226 So. 2d 463, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5330

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 1969

DocketNo. 2296

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 So. 2d 463 (Ameisen v. Royal Continental Hotels Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ameisen v. Royal Continental Hotels Corp., 226 So. 2d 463, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5330 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

WALDEN, Judge.

This is a slip and fall case. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant. The plaintiffs being aggrieved appeal from the resulting final judgment. We reverse.

We acknowledge at the outset that no new or unusual legal proposition is involved and that this writing is merely an explanation for the use of these litigants and the trial court.

We know that a party moving for a directed verdict admits for the purpose of the motion not only the facts shown by the evidence, but also every reasonable inference favorable to the adverse party that the jury might fairly arrive at from the evidence. In other words, in such case the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party moved against. Applying this rule and recognizing the other limitations upon the trial court in directing a verdict,¹ we conclude that the trial court erroneously withdrew this case from the jury. Resolving the conflict in plaintiffs’ favor, there was sufficient evidence produced which would create a jury question as to the improper maintenance which created a dangerous condition upon defendant’s floor, which caused plaintiff’s wife to slip and fall.² This testimony is found in the record and discussed in the [464]*464briefs and we feel that no purpose would be served in restating it here.

The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALDEN, Judge.

This is a slip and fall case. The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant. The plaintiffs being aggrieved appeal from the resulting final judgment. We reverse.

We acknowledge at the outset that no new or unusual legal proposition is involved and that this writing is merely an explanation for the use of these litigants and the trial court.

We know that a party moving for a directed verdict admits for the purpose of the motion not only the facts shown by the evidence, but also every reasonable inference favorable to the adverse party that the jury might fairly arrive at from the evidence. In other words, in such case the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party moved against. Applying this rule and recognizing the other limitations upon the trial court in directing a verdict,¹ we conclude that the trial court erroneously withdrew this case from the jury. Resolving the conflict in plaintiffs’ favor, there was sufficient evidence produced which would create a jury question as to the improper maintenance which created a dangerous condition upon defendant’s floor, which caused plaintiff’s wife to slip and fall.² This testimony is found in the record and discussed in the [464]*464briefs and we feel that no purpose would be served in restating it here.

The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 2d 463, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ameisen-v-royal-continental-hotels-corp-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack