South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog
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.
The Importance of Perspective in Premises Liability Cases
Premises liability cases often hinge on the plaintiff’s perspective and whether the hazard was reasonably noticeable from their viewpoint. Video footage, while valuable, may not always provide the complete picture. In this case, the store relied on video evidence to argue that the cart was visible and, therefore, open and obvious. However, the footage did not replicate the victim’s perspective or conclusively disprove her testimony that the cart was obscured by merchandise.
This decision highlights the critical role that testimonial evidence plays in premises liability cases. A victim’s account of the incident and corroborating evidence can create enough uncertainty to allow the case to proceed to trial.
Storeowners’ Duty to Maintain a Safe Environment
Florida law imposes a duty on storeowners to maintain a safe environment for customers. This includes promptly addressing hazards, providing adequate warnings for known dangers, and arranging merchandise and equipment to minimize risks.
In this case, the presence of a furniture trolley on the sales floor and the lack of clear visibility raises questions about whether the store took reasonable precautions to prevent accidents. Testimony from a store employee that the cart may not have been visible from the victim’s location further supports the argument that the store may have breached its duty of care.
Why Summary Judgment Was Reversed
The appellate court’s decision to reverse summary judgment underscores the importance of allowing juries to evaluate disputed facts. The trial court initially relied on video evidence and employee testimony to conclude that the cart was open and obvious. However, the appellate court found that this evidence did not conclusively refute the victim’s claim that her view was obstructed. As a result, the court determined that a jury should decide whether the store met its duty of care and whether the victim’s injuries resulted from the store’s negligence.
How to Protect Your Rights After a Slip-and-Fall Accident
Acting quickly can strengthen your claim if you are injured in a slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall accident. Document the scene by taking photographs of the hazard and its surroundings, collecting contact information from witnesses, and seeking immediate medical attention to establish a record of your injuries. These steps can help preserve critical evidence and evaluate your case thoroughly.
Consulting an experienced premises liability attorney is also essential. An attorney can analyze the evidence, identify potential weaknesses in the property owner’s defense, and advocate for your right to compensation. Cases like this demonstrate that even when a property owner argues that a hazard was open and obvious, you may still have a viable claim if your perspective and other factors raise genuine questions about visibility and safety.