Broward Executive Builders, Inc. v. Liliana Zota, as Guardian of Mercedes Zota Miguel Zota Susana Zota Miguel Francisco Zota
192 So. 3d 534
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2004, Mercedes Zota fell while painting above a second-story catwalk during construction and suffered serious injuries; no one witnessed the fall and she could not testify.
- Mercedes was using a stepladder and two scaffolds placed on the catwalk; neither the catwalk nor the scaffolds had guardrails.
- Appellees (Zota family) sued Broward Executive Builders (general contractor), alleging failure to install required guardrails violated safety standards and caused Mercedes’s injuries.
- At trial the parties relied on competing experts to reconstruct the accident; appellees’ expert testified only that Mercedes fell from a significant height but could not pinpoint the precise location or mechanism of the fall.
- The jury apportioned fault 50/50 between appellant and Mercedes; appellant moved for directed verdict which was denied; on appeal the Fourth District reversed, finding the verdict rested on impermissible stacking of inferences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury impermissibly stacked circumstantial inferences to find causation | Circumstantial proof and reconstruction evidence support inference Mercedes fell from the catwalk and guardrails would have prevented it | The evidence permits equally reasonable alternative inferences (fall from ladder/scaffold); expert could not locate fall origin | Court: Yes—jury stacked inferences; reversal and directed verdict for defendant |
| Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove where Mercedes fell | Expert testimony and injuries make it more likely than not she fell from catwalk area | Expert could not opine more likely than not which specific location; other reasonable explanations exist | Court: Insufficient—location not established to exclusion of other reasonable inferences |
| Whether lack of guardrails was shown to be legal cause of injury | If Mercedes fell from catwalk, required guardrails would likely have prevented the fall | Fall could have originated above guardrail level or while ascending/descending ladder/scaffold, so guardrails may not have helped | Court: Speculative; causation not proven because prerequisite fact (fall location) not exclusively established |
| Appropriateness of directed verdict given evidence and legal standards | Plaintiffs urged jury determination; opposed directed verdict | Appellant argued evidence legally insufficient to support causation and verdict | Court: Directed verdict required—plaintiff’s proof amounted to speculation, not preponderant circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Bowen, 140 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict)
- Phillips v. Van’s of Lake Worth, 620 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (caution in granting directed verdicts in negligence suits)
- Borda v. E. Coast Entm’t, Inc., 950 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (directed verdict standard quoted)
- Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 234 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (early articulation of directed verdict test)
- Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2015) (plaintiff must show defendant was a substantial factor; mere possibility insufficient)
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984) (causation burden; cannot rest on speculation)
- Brown v. Glade & Grove Supply, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (circumstantial evidence and reconstruction can establish legal cause)
- Stanley v. Marceaux, 991 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (prohibits stacking inferences unless prior inference is exclusive)
- Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960) (foundational rule on inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954) (only draw dependent inferences if prior inference excludes other reasonable theories)
- Wong v. Crown Equipment Corp., 676 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirmed summary judgment where fall origin was unknown and reconstruction evidence lacking)
- Adkins v. Economy Co., 495 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (insufficient evidence of fall cause/location precluded recovery)
- Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 854 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2003) (distinguishes independent vs. dependent inferences)