Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County

661 So. 2d 98, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9362, 1995 WL 521143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1737

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 661 So. 2d 98 (Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County) 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

Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County, 661 So. 2d 98, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9362, 1995 WL 521143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal questioning the propriety of a final judgment in favor of a defendant based on a directed verdict in a “slip and fall” ease. The accident occurred at a Dade County jail facility. The plaintiff was a delivery man for a purveyor. In addition, error is urged in a motion in limine ruling finding hearsay in a written statement by an inmate of the facility and the denial of a loss of consortium claim by the wife for her failure to give a notice pursuant to section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), even though the husband had, in fact, given such a notice.

We reverse, finding that the plaintiff’s case should have gone before a trier of fact. Mahoney v. Burger King Corp., 600 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enterprises, Inc., 560 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lee v. The Southland Corp., 253 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). We find no error in the motion in limine ruling as the inmate was not an agent or employee of the defendant, and therefore the statement was inadmissible under section 90.803(18)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993) amended by 1995 Fla. Laws eh. 95-147. But we do find error in the denial of loss of consortium claim. Chandler v. Novak, 596 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Therefore, the final judgment on the directed verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal questioning the propriety of a final judgment in favor of a defendant based on a directed verdict in a “slip and fall” ease. The accident occurred at a Dade County jail facility. The plaintiff was a delivery man for a purveyor. In addition, error is urged in a motion in limine ruling finding hearsay in a written statement by an inmate of the facility and the denial of a loss of consortium claim by the wife for her failure to give a notice pursuant to section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), even though the husband had, in fact, given such a notice.

We reverse, finding that the plaintiff’s case should have gone before a trier of fact. Mahoney v. Burger King Corp., 600 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enterprises, Inc., 560 So.2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lee v. The Southland Corp., 253 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). We find no error in the motion in limine ruling as the inmate was not an agent or employee of the defendant, and therefore the statement was inadmissible under section 90.803(18)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993) amended by 1995 Fla. Laws eh. 95-147. But we do find error in the denial of loss of consortium claim. Chandler v. Novak, 596 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Therefore, the final judgment on the directed verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 98, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9362, 1995 WL 521143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-metropolitan-dade-county-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack