Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of premises liability cases involving hazards that are not immediately noticeable. In this case, a customer tripped over a furniture trolley left on the sales floor of a retail store. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the store, deciding that the cart was an open and obvious hazard.. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the cart was visible from the customer’s perspective.

This ruling underscores the duty of Florida property owners to ensure their premises are free of dangerous conditions, even if those conditions might be visible under certain circumstances. It also illustrates the importance of a comprehensive examination of evidence in premises liability claims.

What Makes a Hazard “Open and Obvious”?

Under Florida law, property owners are not automatically liable for every hazard on their premises. If a danger is considered “open and obvious,” property owners may not have a duty to warn patrons or remove the hazard. However, whether a hazard is truly open and obvious depends on the specific circumstances of the incident, including the victim’s perspective and the layout of the premises.

In this case, the victim argued that a wall of merchandise obstructed her view of the furniture trolley and that she only became aware of it after tripping. While video footage showed the trolley from certain angles, it did not conclusively capture the victim’s line of sight or demonstrate that the cart was clearly visible from her position. The appellate court determined that this lack of definitive evidence raised a factual question suitable for a jury to decide.

Continue Reading ›

A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal addresses an essential issue in premises liability cases: whether a business can be held responsible for a customer’s injuries caused by a slippery floor. The case involved a customer who slipped and fell in a restaurant restroom, allegedly due to a freshly mopped floor. The customer argued that the restaurant failed to adequately warn patrons about the dangerous condition and failed to maintain the floor in a safe condition.

The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the restaurant, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. This ruling highlights key considerations for slip-and-fall claims in Florida, particularly the burden of proof required to establish negligence and the significance of evidence like witness testimony and maintenance procedures.

Establishing Negligence in Florida Premises Liability Cases

In Florida, property owners must maintain their premises reasonably safe and warn visitors of known hazards. For a successful premises liability claim, you must demonstrate:

• The property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard;
• The hazard caused your injury; and
• The property owner failed to take reasonable steps to address or warn about the danger.

In this case, the victim presented evidence that the restroom floor was wet due to an employee’s recent mopping. The restaurant argued that there was no proof the floor was wet at the time of the fall. Still, the victim’s testimony, combined with evidence of the employee’s mopping practices, created a genuine issue of material fact for the jury.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal in a slip and fall case between Dollar General, the defendant, and Kimberly Doty, the plaintiff and customer of the store. The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff slipped and fell as she entered the Dollar General store.

On July 3, 2017, a Dollar General store in Port Orange displayed seasonal merchandise in two “U-boats”—carts shaped like hotel baggage carriers—outside the store’s entrance. When it started raining that afternoon, Dollar General employee Barbara Ralph moved the U-boats indoors and placed a wet floor sign nearby. When the rain stopped, Dollar General employee Robert Boarder put the U-boats back outside and moved the wet floor sign. Moments later, Kimberly Doty entered the store. She made it a few steps inside before she slipped and fell. She later sued Dollar General for negligence, alleging that “a puddle of water near the main entrance” caused her to fall.

At trial, Dollar General moved for a directed verdict, claiming there was no evidence that it knew about the water on the floor that Doty slipped on. The trial court denied the motion. The court suggested that Dollar General’s arguments were aimed at the weight rather than the sufficiency of the evidence presented and reasoned that it is the role of the jury to weigh the incident report collectively with all the other case evidence. Ultimately, the jury found Dollar General liable for Doty’s fall. Dollar General moved to set aside the verdict and enter judgment for Dollar General, claiming again that there was no evidence showing that it knew about the water on the floor. The trial court denied the motion, and Dollar General appealed, again maintaining the evidence warranted a directed defense verdict.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida First District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a duty to warn or duty of reasonable care liability action between a plaintiff who was a visitor in a hospital, and the defendant, the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH). The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff slipped on some liquid as she exited an elevator on the ground floor and sustained injuries that required her to be hospitalized.

The trial court found in favor of the defendant, granting summary judgment and finding that the plaintiff failed to show that a TMH employee knew that he was creating a dangerous condition. On appeal, the court held that there was no material fact dispute. As the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence the appellate court ruled that no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff at trial and summary judgment for TMH was the correct ruling.

During the trial, the plaintiff advanced a theory that she slipped on water left in the elevator by a stretcher pushed out of the elevator by TMH employees immediately before she entered. The plaintiff’s complaint further contended that TMH negligently maintained its premises and allowed a dangerous condition to persist without warning her or taking steps to ameliorate the condition. She sought compensation for the damage she suffered from the slip-and-fall at TMH. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to present substantive evidence from which a jury reasonably could infer that the TMH employees knew of the dripping water, or that the employees could have done anything to correct the unsafe conditions in the short time that passed between the stretcher coming off the elevator and her entering it. The trial court granted the defendant’s request for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s appeal followed.

Continue Reading ›

In a recent appeals case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit produced an opinion for an appeal involving a summary judgment ruling in a negligence case in Florida. The plaintiff-appellant was injured when she slipped on a grape in a Wal-Mart store and she subsequently sued the defendant-appellee, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Wal-Mart), for negligence. At trial, after the discovery process was completed, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge that Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge of the grape, and thus she could not succeed on a negligence claim under Florida law. The plaintiff then filed a timely appeal.

The incident in question occurred on August 23, 2018, when the plaintiff was shopping at a Wal-Mart in West Palm Beach when she slipped on a grape and fell on her back and left side. A nearby employee helped her get up. The plaintiff reported feeling dizzy, and after filling out a Customer Incident Report, she went to Palm Beach Gardens Hospital, where she received treatment. The plaintiff had twice inspected the produce section near the grapes before falling, stating that she had not seen the grape either time. An employee had walked through the section approximately ten minutes prior to the accident and did not see the grape. A two-hour video from Wal-Mart’s surveillance cameras could not conclusively establish when the grape appeared in that spot. Following the accident the plaintiff sued Wal-Mart for negligence and Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida based on diversity jurisdiction.

Following the district court’s granting of summary judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal contending that when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence on the record contains a genuine dispute of material fact over Wal-Mart’s constructive knowledge of the grape that caused her to fall. Under Florida law, a plaintiff must establish four elements to sustain a successful negligence claim: (1) “the defendant owed a ‘duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks’”; (2) “the defendant failed to conform to that duty”; (3) there is “‘[a] reasonably close causal connection between the [nonconforming] conduct and the resulting injury’ to the claimant”; and (4) “some actual harm.”

Plaintiffs who make a premises liability or other personal injury claim in Florida are often required to testify at the trial. A victim’s testimony can be used to describe how an injury occurred or to explain the effects that an injury has had on their quality of life. In cases of injuries with no eyewitnesses, surveillance footage, or other documentary evidence of a plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff’s testimony can be the most crucial evidence in the case. Because a jury often decides cases based on the credibility and trustworthiness of a witness, defendants will often try to smear a plaintiff’s credibility so that a jury will not believe the testimony. The Florida Court of Appeal recently affirmed a trial judge’s ruling, which allowed the defendant’s counsel to attack the credibility of a personal injury plaintiff during cross-examination.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was allegedly injured in a slip and fall incident at the defendant’s retail store. According to the facts discussed in the judicial opinion, the alleged slip-and-fall was not caught on camera, and the plaintiff’s credibility was a central feature of the trial. Before trial, the defense had asked the plaintiff’s attorney to furnish income and other financial information as part of the discovery process. The plaintiff’s attorney refused the request, responding that the requested information was not relevant to the plaintiff’s claims.

At trial, the plaintiff testified about what happened on the day of the incident. Defense counsel cross-examined the plaintiff, bringing up that their attorney refused to supply the requested income information. The questions were permitted despite the plaintiff’s objection that the questioning was irrelevant and damaged the plaintiff’s credibility. After the trial, the jury came back with a verdict in favor of the defendant.

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a dispute between a patron, Marvel Martin, and a restaurant, Columbia Food Service. Mrs. Martin tripped on a hexagonal piece of pavement immediately outside of the restaurant doors and contends that Columbia Restaurant was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Specifically, Mrs. Martin contends that Columbia had joint and shared responsibility with the City of Tampa for the pavers located around the Restaurant. Stating that Columbia Restaurant had actual possession and control of the sidewalk and therefore assumed the duty to keep it free from dangerous conditions. They further state that Columbia Restaurant’s duty extends beyond the confines of the Restaurant because it invited customers to use that sidewalk for entrance and exit to the location.

On May 21, 2017, Mrs. Martin was having lunch with her sister at the Columbia Restaurant. As she was leaving, she tripped on an uneven hexagonal paver located directly beneath the awning that the Columbia Restaurant owns and maintains. The awning is attached to the Restaurant and is supported by pillars affixed above the sidewalk. The City of Tampa permits Columbia Restaurant to erect the awning, but the agreement makes no mention of the sidewalk. Columbia Restaurant has porters check the sidewalk for debris each morning, and each week, the porters power-wash the sidewalk and parking lot. Based on these facts, the trial court granted summary judgment in Columbia Restaurant’s favor.

Mrs. Martin appeals, stating that Columbia Restaurant has joint and shared responsibility with the City of Tampa for maintaining the sidewalk and that the Restaurant has actual possession and control of the sidewalk, making it their responsibility to keep it free of dangerous conditions. Additionally, Mrs. Martin contends that it is Columbia Restaurant’s duty extends beyond the confines of the Restaurant as it invites customers to use the sidewalk for ingress and egress.

The Supreme Court of Florida recently approved the district court’s decision in a negligence case related to a slip-and-fall. The plaintiff sought to recover past medical expenses due to the fall on the defendant’s property. A jury awarded the plaintiff $34,642 for past medical expenses. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting her from introducing evidence of the gross amount of her past medical expenses and limiting her to raising only the discounted amounts paid by Medicare.

In analyzing the case, the Court addressed the holding in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 176 So. 3d 1247 (Fla. 2015). In that case, the Court concluded that future Medicare benefits are both uncertain and a liability due to the right of reimbursement that Medicare retains. The Court held that Joerg is not relevant because it set the scope of its holding to evidence concerning future Medicare benefits, which is not in dispute in the current case.

Recent case law from Florida highlights the issues many plaintiffs encounter when trying to recover maximum compensation for their injuries. Generally, Florida’s collateral source rule hinders juries from hearing evidence of a party’s payments from third-party payers. However, a narrow exception carved out in Florida Physician’s Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley caused significant confusion amongst courts. Further, in Joerg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Court reasoned that where Medicare benefits subjects beneficiaries to CMS’ enforcement tools, including demands for reimbursement, receiving Medicare constitutes a “serious liability.” The Florida Supreme Court also noted that Medicare benefits are too speculative to serve as a basis to reduce a claimant’s future medical damages.