Case Summary Brief (2-Page Maximum)

Jim Whitney Economics 495

Case summary brief (2-page maximum)

Recorder name: David Sacci Case name: Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. (d) v. Benton (p) Citation; Date: 576 So.2d 359 (1991) Court: Court of Appeal of Florida, Forth District

Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level Plaintiff: Dorothea Benton, Appellee. Benton was the party injured in the defendant’s store Defendant: Winn Dixie Stores, Inc,, Appellant. Winn Dixie was the owner of the store in which the defendant was injured

Facts of the case: In the Winn Dixie store presented in this case, there was a puddle of milk on the floor that measured 5-8 inches long by 3-4 inches wide. In addition there were drops of milk leading from the puddle to the milk case in the store 30 feet away. Furthermore there were consistently spaced drops of milk leading from the puddle of milk to the checkout lines in the store. The floor hadn’t been cleaned in a while. The plaintiff slipped in the milk puddle and was injured. A leaky milk carton was found in the checkout area immediately after the fall.

Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available): The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries resulting from slipping on the spilled milk. A lower court entered a verdict for the plaintiff. The lower court denied Winn Dixie’s request for a directed verdict. Winn Dixie appealed.

Court opinion (key issues and arguments): The plaintiff proved that milk was on the floor for a time that was sufficiently long enough for the store’s staff to discover it and clean it up. The circumstances lead the court to infer that the dangerous condition lasting long enough for the store to reasonably know about the spilled milk and to clean it up. The conditions persisted long enough to prove notice (constructive knowledge).

Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments): There was not sufficient time for the management to know about the spilled milk and to react to it. There were no tire tracks running through the puddle, indicating that it was fresh.

Disposition of case: Defendant’s appeal was denied. Ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE 1. Course topic of the case: Tort Law—breach of duty

2. How does the case relate to the course topic? This case illustrates the duty of ordinary care which states that Winn Dixie should have acted in due diligence. Because Winn Dixie did not provide a sufficient level of care, the plaintiff was injured. This case also introduced the concept of “notice,” which is constructive knowledge. In other words, the defendant should have known about the spilled milk.

3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ? The case of Sanborn v McLean (1925) is related to this case because both discuss the concept of constructive knowledge. In Sanborn v McLean the court held the defendants to a standard that they should have known the restrictions on their property. It was information that a reasonable person should have known. In this case the court opinion stated that Winn Dixie should have cleaned up the milk on the floor because it created a dangerous situation for a long enough period of time that a reasonable employee should have cleaned it up.

4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency? Winn Dixie, the injurer, did not devote enough resources to prevent the plaintiff’s injury from happening. The ruling in the name of the plaintiff creates an incentive for stores to take precautions (such as frequently monitoring and cleaning the floors) in order to reduce the possibility of a loss. The store will be liable for the loss suffered if the injured party can charge them with notice.