Rowland v. Harris Corp.

The principal issue raised by appellant in this premises liability case was the trial court’s refusal, despite repeated urgings by appellant, to give the second portion of standard jury instruction 3.5(f), which pertains to constructive notice. The court’s stated basis for the refusal was: “There is conflicting evidence as to constructive knowledge, and it’s for that reason that I chose not to give that portion of the charge.” The trial court was half right: There was conflicting evidence in this record as to whether Harris Corporation had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Thus,…