Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

407 So. 2d 389, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22023
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 22, 1981
DocketNo. 81-584
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 407 So. 2d 389 (Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.) 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
Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22023 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

Directing a verdict for the defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., the trial judge declared that a dangerous condition would be created only if the glass bottles of Pine-Sol (a slippery liquid cleanser) were displayed on the defendant’s grocery store shelves so that more than fifty per cent of the three-to-four-inch base of the bottles overlapped the edges of the shelves. Under this restrictive view of “dangerous condition,” only store customers caught in an avalanche of Pine-Sol bottles falling to the floor as a result of imbalance and gravity could possibly recover for injuries. Since Mrs. Frison was admittedly not the victim of freely falling bottles, but instead, while reaching for a less accessible, smaller bottle of Pine-Sol, she apparently dislodged the larger bottles which were stacked so as to protrude an inch beyond the edges of the shelves, she was denied recovery by the trial court.

Winn-Dixie’s argument, here and below, that the bottles could not fall down by themselves is hardly a basis for a finding that, as a matter of law, the store was not negligent, even if the plaintiff herself was negligent. See Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Whether Winn-Dixie was negligent in shelving the glass bottles so that they precariously protruded an inch beyond the edges of the shelves is most assuredly a jury question. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered upon the directed verdict in favor of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and remand the cause for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Klaue v. Galencare, Inc.
696 So. 2d 933 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc.
677 So. 2d 405 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.
596 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Valdes v. Faby Enterprises, Inc.
483 So. 2d 65 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 So. 2d 389, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frison-v-winn-dixie-stores-inc-fladistctapp-1981.