In Ramey v. Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 710 So.2d 191, 192-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), Tim Ramey, sued Winn Dixie Montgomery, Inc. (Winn Dixie) for recovery of damages for back injuries.
Ramey suffered in a slip and fall in a Winn Dixie supermarket. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District issued an opinion on April 29, 1998.
Although this is an older case, it is still good law. It has been cited for several propositions that I will discuss further below.
The 1rst District has jurisdiction over thirty-two counties: Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Nassau, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton and Washington.
This slip and fall likely happened in one of those counties. This is because if you sue a Florida Winn Dixie, it usually must be in the county where your slip and fall happened.
A Fort Lauderdale, Florida lawyer represented Ramey. A Crestview, Florida attorney represented Winn Dixie. This is not my case, though I settled many Florida supermarket slip and fall cases.
Jury finds shopper and Winn Dixie both negligent
The jury found Winn Dixie and Ramey were each fifty per cent negligent. This means that Ramey’s total awarded damages are cut in half because the jury found her 50% negligent.
They awarded Ramey the amount of medical bills incurred, together with $6,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and zero damages for future medical care, and non-economic damages.
Ramey appealed the denial of his motion for new trial or additur. Additur is when you ask the court to increase the amount that the jury awarded. The appeals court ordered a new trial.
To withstand Winn Dixie’s motion for directed verdict, Ramey needed to prove that Winn Dixie had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. A motion for directed verdict is when Winn Dixie tries to have the case dismissed during the trial.
Partially Melted Butter with Lumps Gets Case to Trial
In Ramey, the court concluded that partially melted butter with lumps in it may in itself be sufficient to create a jury question on constructive notice.
The trial court concluded that Ramey’s testimony that the butter on the supermarket floor had lumps in it and had partly melted constituted sufficient evidence to submit the question to the jury. Your goal is to get your case to a jury.
The court found the fact that the butter had melted indicated it had been on the floor for a period of time. Winn Dixie correctly claimed that Ramey did not testify that some of the butter had melted.
Nevertheless, it appears partial melting reasonably could be inferred from testimony that there were some “chunks of butter” on the floor.
The scattered chunks of butter could reasonably be regarded by a jury as an indicator that a sufficient period of time had passed to put Winn Dixie on notice of the condition of the substance on the floor.
Therefore, the appeals court affirmed (agreed with) the trial court’s ruling that enough evidence was presented from which the jury could determine that Winn Dixie was negligent.
Undisputed evidence of permanent injury
The appeals court said that there was undisputed evidence of Ramey’s permanent injury; his continuing, and perhaps, increasing pain; and his continuing need for palliative treatment.
Palliative care is medical care for people with serious injuries. It focuses on providing patients with relief from the symptoms and stress of a serious injury. The goal is to improve quality of life for the person that is hurt.
The jury awarded no damages for future medical treatment, or for future pain and suffering.
In ruling on Ramey’s motion for new trial or additur, the trial court found that Winn Dixie failed to present evidence to rebut Ramey’s evidence of permanent injury.
Jurors can reject future damages due to delay in seeking medical care
The trial court denied Ramey’s motion for new trial, based on the court’s further finding that Ramey’s delay in seeking medical care permitted the jury to reject or discount the evidence of a permanent and continuing injury with an associated entitlement to future economic and noneconomic damages.
Ramey presented the testimony of two treating physicians, a general practitioner and a neurosurgeon.
Both physicians testified that:
- Ramey suffered a herniated disc caused by the fall in a Winn Dixie supermarket;
- the injury is permanent;
- back pain is always associated with such injuries; and
- Ramey will need intermittent treatment for back pain for the remainder of his life.
Winn Dixie presented no evidence to dispute that:
- Ramey sustained a permanent injury, and
- The pain necessarily caused by such injury or that the injury would require future treatment.
In addition, Ramey’s treating physicians testified that Ramey’s delay in seeking treatment was due to his lack of medical insurance and his lack of funds to pay for the tests required for a definitive diagnosis of his back condition.
Although the physicians treated Ramey despite his lack of money, Ramey experienced considerable difficulty and delay in obtaining a prescribed MRI.
Injured person’s financial situation no longer allowed as reason for delay in treatment
New Law! In a recent case, Hurtado v. DeSouza, Florida: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2015, the court said that a car crash victim could not testify that was unable to seek medical treatment because there was no health insurance. Florida’s 4th DCA handles appeals from Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties.
I assume that the car accident happened in one of those counties. In Hurtado, the plaintiff and his wife testified to their financial situation, including the house foreclosure and general lack of money, preventing the plaintiff from seeking medical treatment.
Therefore, if the Ramey case was decided today, the result may have been worse for the shopper.
Back to the Ramey case…
The reason for Ramey’s alleged delay in seeking treatment was told to the jury. There was no evidence that the minimal delays in treatment contributed to or worsened Ramey’s condition in any way. Thus, there was no support for the trial court’s denial of Ramey’s motion for new trial.
Tip: In other cases, Winn Dixie may hire a doctor who may say that minimal delays in your treatment contributed to or worsened your condition in any way. This may decrease the full settlement value or verdict in your case. This may result in a smaller settlement offer.
The appeals court said that the zero damages award for future medical expenses and for future pain and suffering is not reasonable in light of the undisputed evidence of permanent injury; continuing, and perhaps, increasing pain; and a continuing need for treatment.
They said that this unreasonable verdict was most likely the result of some sort of improper compromise or balancing on a close issue of negligence, rather than a proper separate determination on the issues of negligence and damages.
Fact: Studies have shown that if jurors are split on whether a defendant was negligent, they may agree with the other jurors that the defendant was negligent. However, the jurors may offset this by reducing the damages.
The appeals court said that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. The appeals court ordered a new trial for the injured man.
Unfortunately, I do not know the result. The case may have settled before the new trial, or it may have gone to trial.
Want to Learn more about Winn Dixie Supermarket Accident Claims?
Check out these must see articles:
- Slip and Fall on “Unnoticeable” Drops of Water vs. Winn Dixie Dismissed
- Shopper sued Winn Dixie for a Trip and Fall on a Hole on a Handicap Access Ramp at a South Florida store.
Call Us Now!
Call us now at (888) 594-3577 to find out for FREE if we can represent you. We answer calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
No Fees or Costs if We Do Not Get You Money
We speak Spanish. We invite you to learn more about us.