Case Name: Raymond L. HOLMES, Appellant, v. DON MEALEY CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-05-16
Citations: 468 So. 2d 552
Docket Number: No. 84-1456
Parties: Raymond L. HOLMES, Appellant, v. DON MEALEY CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: COBB, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 468
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
Raymond L. HOLMES, Appellant, v. DON MEALEY CHEVROLET, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 84-1456.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 16, 1985.
Margaret E. Sojourner, of Daze & Sojourner, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
James M. Talley, of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
The final judgment for defendant in this personal injury action is reversed because we conclude that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case.
A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict. Ferber v. Orange Blossom Center, Inc., 388 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party to the motion for directed verdict; the plaintiff/appellant here. Otey v. Florida Power and Light Company, 400 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 465 (Fla.1982).
Plaintiff tripped and fell as he entered from defendant's parking lot into defendant's parts department. There was evidence presented that he caught his toe on the unfinished edge of carpet that wrapped over the edge of a step leading into this entrance, but which carpet did not go down the full height of the step riser. There was also ' testimony that the carpet had been installed by one of defendant's employees, who had been told by his superior to wrap the carpet over the edge of the step but not to bring it all the way down. There was expert testimony presented that installing carpet in this manner was dangerous because it created a potential "trip area."
There was thus sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the defendant created and maintained a dangerous condition on its business premises thus breaching its duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for its invitees, Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and that the maintenance of that condition proximately caused or contributed to plaintiff's injury. The case should not have been taken from the jury.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
COBB, C.J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.