Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 25, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Phar-Mor of Florida, Inc. and Searstown Partners, Ltd. contest the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial to appellees Linda and Donald Steuernagel after the jury had ruled in favor of the appellants. The appellate court agrees with the appellants, citing an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and reverses the order for a new trial. The case stems from a negligence claim by the Steuernagels, alleging damages from Linda Steuernagel’s slip and fall on May 16, 1987, in a puddle at Phar-Mor's store in Clearwater. Searstown, as the property owner, was responsible for roof repairs per their lease with Phar-Mor. On the incident date, Phar-Mor’s store manager had set up safety measures, including buckets to collect water from a leak that developed during a heavy rainstorm, and erected barricades to block customer access to the affected area. Store personnel testified that they routinely monitored the leak area and reported no issues during their shifts. The assistant manager was later informed of the incident, discovering Mrs. Steuernagel in the area, but no witnesses corroborated her fall. Testimonies from the Steuernagels regarding the location of the fall conflicted with other evidence presented.
Testimony indicated no leaks or puddles outside a barricaded area, although the Steuernagels claimed there was no barricade, contradicting the store manager's account. Conflicts in evidence arose regarding the liability of the appellants for failing to warn the Steuernagels of a hazardous condition. The jury found no corroborating evidence of a puddle where Mrs. Steuernagel fell, nor how long it had been there. The trial judge supported a new trial by asserting that the roof leaked, creating a danger, and that PHAR-MOR failed to adequately warn customers. Mrs. Steuernagel suffered permanent injuries from falling near a rain bucket. Searstown Partners had a duty to repair the roof but did not comply with PHAR-MOR's requests. The trial judge did not claim the jury was improperly influenced, and his order for a new trial was based solely on his assessment of the evidence's weight, without addressing witness credibility. It was determined that the judge overstepped by acting as an additional juror amid conflicting evidence. Citing relevant case law, it was concluded that a reasonable jury could have ruled in favor of the appellants, leading to the reversal of the new trial order and reinstatement of the jury's verdict for the appellants.
