DAVIE PLAZA, LLC v. EMMANUEL IORDANOGLU, etc.
16-1846
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Davie Plaza owned a shopping center; its tenant 84 Diner employed Mikhael Maroudis as a handyman.
- In June 2007, Maroudis climbed an A-frame ladder (not opened as usual) to access two roof levels to clear water; he fell while descending from the lower roof to the ground and later died (suit continued by his estate).
- The complaint alleged a latent defect in the exterior walkway/parking lot where Maroudis placed his ladder, claiming the surface "collapsed" under the ladder foot and caused the fall.
- At deposition and trial Maroudis gave inconsistent testimony about where he placed the ladder (concrete left of the door, asphalt, or on the line between concrete and asphalt) and admitted he did not know what caused him to fall. Photographs and witness testimony showed changes and uncertainty about surface materials at the accident site.
- The Estate produced an expert who identified code violations/uneven surfaces in the vicinity but did not opine on the cause of the fall or exactly where the ladder had been placed; the defense expert opined the ladder placement/use (angle and unopened A-frame) could have been improper and that the specific area left of the door was not defective.
- Davie Plaza moved for directed verdict (at close of plaintiff’s case, after all evidence, and post-trial) arguing the Estate relied on stacked inferences and failed to prove causation; the trial court denied the motions, jury returned a plaintiff verdict, and the Fourth District reversed, directing judgment for Davie Plaza.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estate proved Davie Plaza's negligence was the legal cause of Maroudis’s fall | Estate: circumstantial evidence of defective surfaces and code violations in the area plus Maroudis’s fall suffice to infer causation | Davie: evidence is speculative and inconsistent as to where ladder was placed; other reasonable inferences (ladder misuse/angle) explain fall | Reversed — Estate failed to prove initial inference (ladder on defective surface) to exclusion of other reasonable inferences, so causation not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Geico v. Harvey, 208 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (standard of review for directed verdict and appellate de novo review)
- Weinstein Design Grp., Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (view evidence and inferences most favorable to non‑movant on directed verdict)
- Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960) (circumstantial evidence cannot rely on stacked inferences unless initial inference is established to exclusion of other reasonable inferences)
- Miller v. Aldrich, 685 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (accident alone does not establish breach or causation where plaintiff cannot explain fall)
- Gelco Convention Servs. v. Pettengill, 710 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (plaintiff must prove breach and proximate cause; mere occurrence of accident insufficient)
- Hurst v. Astudillo, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (similar principle on causation and proof requirements)
- Ortiz v. Lorie, 921 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (distinguishable: circumstantial proof upheld where defective ladder supplied and expert tied defect to fall)
- Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1959) (plaintiff’s inability to remember fall did not defeat claim where expert tied defect to the instrumentality being used)