Martin Bakerman was an employee of The Bombay Company and obtained a jury verdict in his favor. The appeal focused on whether the employer engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to result in injury to Bakerman. The Supreme Court of Florida identified facts presented to the jury that reflected a substantial certainty of injury. The parties disagreed on remand about what proceedings should follow the Supreme Court's decision.
Issue
Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury verdict. More specifically, the question was whether The Bombay Company engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to result in injury to employee Martin Bakerman.
Rule
A jury verdict for an employee may be upheld where there is competent substantial evidence that the employer engaged in conduct substantially certain to result in injury or death. Proof that the employer concealed the danger is not an essential element of that showing.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Tampa, Nora Vega worked for Gulf Lantern Furnishings, a fictional home-decor warehouse. After Nora was badly injured, a jury found for her based on evidence that supervisors repeatedly required employees to use a loading setup that predictably caused serious mishaps, even though no witness testified that the company hid the danger from workers.
If Gulf Lantern argues on appeal that the verdict must be reversed because Nora failed to prove concealment, what is the best response?
Explanation. The majority opinion states that the key question is whether the employer engaged in conduct substantially certain to result in injury or death, and it expressly rejects concealment as an essential element. If the record contains competent substantial evidence supporting that theory, the jury verdict may be upheld without proof that the employer hid the danger. (Derived from Bakerman v. Bombay Company (n.d.).)