Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Construction Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Construction Co.

330 So. 2d 158, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14940

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1976

DocketNo. W-435

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 330 So. 2d 158 (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Construction Co.) 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

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Virginia Construction Co., 330 So. 2d 158, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14940 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Virginia Construction Co., Inc., on Winn-Dixie’s third-party claim for indemnity in an action by a shopper who was injured by a fall in Winn-Dixie’s market in the course of renovations by appellee Virginia. The shopper was crossing a plywood cover which Virginia had placed over a temporary excavation in the floor when the braces beneath the cover collapsed. The trial court held that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that, as a matter of law, Winn-Dixie was not passively negligent but actively negligent in failing to protect its patrons from or warn them of the danger of walking across the plywood.

We conceive that the trial court record at the time of the summary judgment hearing failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that appellant Winn-Dixie created the negligent condition which resulted in the shopper’s injury, had actual knowledge of its creation by Virginia or otherwise was actively negligent as in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So.2d 45 (Fla.App. 1st, 1963), modified and affirmed, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 160 So.2d 102 (Fla.1964). The dangerous condition resulting in the shopper's injury was not simply that a wooden cover had been built to permit pedestrian passage through the store but rather that it had been built by Virginia in such a way that the underpnnings buckled under the weight of Virginia’s wheelbarrows and Winn-Dixie’s shopping traffic. There is no evidence in this record sufficient to support summary disposition that Winn-Dixie’s manager had actual knowledge, as in Fellows, of the dangerous condition. Winn-Dixie’s knowledge that the excavation and cover existed and its observation of the surface do not preclude a jury issue.

REVERSED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and HARDING, MAJOR B., Associate Judge, concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Virginia Construction Co., Inc., on Winn-Dixie’s third-party claim for indemnity in an action by a shopper who was injured by a fall in Winn-Dixie’s market in the course of renovations by appellee Virginia. The shopper was crossing a plywood cover which Virginia had placed over a temporary excavation in the floor when the braces beneath the cover collapsed. The trial court held that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that, as a matter of law, Winn-Dixie was not passively negligent but actively negligent in failing to protect its patrons from or warn them of the danger of walking across the plywood.

We conceive that the trial court record at the time of the summary judgment hearing failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that appellant Winn-Dixie created the negligent condition which resulted in the shopper’s injury, had actual knowledge of its creation by Virginia or otherwise was actively negligent as in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows, 153 So.2d 45 (Fla.App. 1st, 1963), modified and affirmed, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 160 So.2d 102 (Fla.1964). The dangerous condition resulting in the shopper's injury was not simply that a wooden cover had been built to permit pedestrian passage through the store but rather that it had been built by Virginia in such a way that the underpnnings buckled under the weight of Virginia’s wheelbarrows and Winn-Dixie’s shopping traffic. There is no evidence in this record sufficient to support summary disposition that Winn-Dixie’s manager had actual knowledge, as in Fellows, of the dangerous condition. Winn-Dixie’s knowledge that the excavation and cover existed and its observation of the surface do not preclude a jury issue.

REVERSED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and HARDING, MAJOR B., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 So. 2d 158, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winn-dixie-stores-inc-v-virginia-construction-co-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack