However the referee never addressed this issue and

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rolet, Inc., 371 F.Supp. 381 (M.D.Fla.1974) (employer is liable for improper acts of its agents committed in the scope of their employment even though they may have deviated from the employer's instructions). The store owed the customer the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable and safe manner. See Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 570 So.2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Phillips v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 373 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Luckey v. City of Orlando, 264 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The employee did not act when confronted with a hanger directly in the customer's path; K-Mart thus breached the duty of care it owed Perl. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary evidence, the plaintiff should have prevailed on her motion for directed verdict on the negligence issue. [2] The fact that Perl may have been contributorily negligent does not alter the above analysis. A directed verdict may *414 still lie as against a defendant whose negligent acts are less than the sole proximate cause of an injury. Burton v. Powell, 547 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). This is merely a finding that the defendant was negligent to some extent. Id. See also Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985); Marlowe v. Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc., 284 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So.2d 205 (Fla.1974). Upon remand, the trial court is directed to enter a directed verdict on the issue of KMart's negligence. The case should then be retried on the issue of Mrs. Perl's contributory negligence, if any, and any damages she has sustained. Reversed and remanded. 249 Case # 25 RIVERO vs. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 764 So.2d 850, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1856 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Ruben P. RIVERO, Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees. No. 3D99-3198. Aug. 9, 2000. Claimant appealed decision of Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming decision of appeals referee denying him unemployment benefits. The District Co...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online