Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13987, 2002 WL 31115123, 826 So. 2d 513 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An answer to an interrogatory from a defendant regarding their actions at the time of an incident is admissible as substantive evidence and can establish the defendant's knowledge of a dangerous condition, thereby precluding a directed verdict against a plaintiff in a slip and fall case.
Facts:
- Ruth Silvers entered a Wal-Mart store.
- It was raining on the day Ruth Silvers visited Wal-Mart.
- Ruth Silvers slipped and fell on water on the floor while walking toward the shopping carts.
- The shopping carts in the area were dripping wet.
- Wal-Mart's maintenance personnel were mopping the floor at the time Ruth Silvers fell.
- Wal-Mart had placed cones in the area where Ruth Silvers fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth Silvers filed a slip and fall lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in a trial court.
- During the trial, at the conclusion of Ruth Silvers' case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- The trial court made this ruling based on its determination that Wal-Mart's answer to an interrogatory was not admissible as substantive evidence and that Ruth Silvers had not presented evidence regarding the duration of the water on the floor or Wal-Mart's knowledge of it.
- Ruth Silvers, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's directed verdict to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to admit a defendant's answer to an interrogatory as substantive evidence, consequently improperly granting a directed verdict against a plaintiff in a slip and fall case?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
Yes, the trial court erred by refusing to consider Wal-Mart's answer to the interrogatory as substantive evidence and, consequently, by directing a verdict for Wal-Mart. The court reasoned that, according to Alexander v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc. and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(b), answers to interrogatories are admissible as substantive evidence. Wal-Mart's admission that its maintenance personnel were mopping and had placed cones demonstrated the store's knowledge of the dangerous condition (water on the floor), which was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence for Ruth Silvers. The court also noted that while the Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. decision, which clarified the burden of proof in slip and fall cases, was not retroactive to cases already tried, its reversal of the directed verdict means Owens would apply on remand. The court also declined to find error in the trial court's decision not to admit a bystander statement as an excited utterance.
Concurring - Shahood, J.
Justice Shahood concurred in the majority opinion.
Concurring - Dell, John W., Senior Judge
Senior Judge Dell concurred in the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case underscores the crucial role of discovery responses, specifically interrogatory answers, as substantive evidence in establishing a prima facie case of negligence, particularly regarding the defendant's knowledge of a dangerous condition. It highlights that such evidence can be sufficient to overcome a motion for directed verdict, allowing a plaintiff's case to proceed to a jury. The opinion also implicitly navigates the evolving landscape of premises liability law in Florida, referencing the then-recent Owens decision and a subsequent legislative attempt (section 768.0710, Florida Statutes) to modify the burden of proof, signaling potential future legal challenges regarding retroactivity, especially concerning the impairment of vested rights or creation of new obligations.
