Hamilton v. Albertson's, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton v. Albertson's, Inc.

440 So. 2d 663, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24342

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1983

DocketNo. AR-113

StatusPublished

This text of 440 So. 2d 663 (Hamilton v. Albertson's, 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

Hamilton v. Albertson's, Inc., 440 So. 2d 663, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24342 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, sued for damages in this slip-and-fall case and appeal an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict. The only issue presented concerns an alleged erroneous instruction given the jury.

There was no evidence showing how the slippery substance came to be on the floor. The only negligence issue supported by the evidence and argued to the jury was whether the slippery substance had been on the floor sufficiently long to put appellee on notice. On the record before us, appellants have failed to preserve and demonstrate reversible error regarding the jury instructions taken as a whole. Arnold v. Taco Properties, Inc., 427 So.2d 216, 219-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Page v. Cory Corp., 347 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Frankowitz v. Beck, 257 So.2d 918, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). This case is distinguishable from and thus not governed by LaRussa v. Vetro, 254 So.2d 537 (Fla.1971).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, sued for damages in this slip-and-fall case and appeal an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict. The only issue presented concerns an alleged erroneous instruction given the jury.

There was no evidence showing how the slippery substance came to be on the floor. The only negligence issue supported by the evidence and argued to the jury was whether the slippery substance had been on the floor sufficiently long to put appellee on notice. On the record before us, appellants have failed to preserve and demonstrate reversible error regarding the jury instructions taken as a whole. Arnold v. Taco Properties, Inc., 427 So.2d 216, 219-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Page v. Cory Corp., 347 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Frankowitz v. Beck, 257 So.2d 918, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Henningsen v. Smith, 174 So.2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). This case is distinguishable from and thus not governed by LaRussa v. Vetro, 254 So.2d 537 (Fla.1971).

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 663, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-albertsons-inc-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack