South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Recently, an appeals court issued an opinion stemming from a woman’s injuries after falling in a Florida restaurant parking lot. According to the record, the woman and her then-boyfriend were meeting another couple at another restaurant in Naples. The man dropped the woman off in front of the restaurant while looking for parking. As the woman was looking toward the restaurants in the area, she tripped and fell to the ground. The victim could not specify what caused her fall, but it occurred around the pavers in front of the restaurant.

The woman filed lawsuits against the City and restaurant, adding that the restaurant negligently or incorrectly stalled the pavers, making them dangerous. The restaurant moved for summary judgment, asserting several defenses. The lower court ruled in favor of the restaurant’s motion to dismiss, and the woman appealed. On appeal, she argued that the restaurant failed to establish that they did not maintain a duty to the woman. In response, the restaurant claimed that it did not have a duty to maintain the public sidewalk and that it was the City’s responsibility.

In Florida premises liability cases, the inquiry into a defendant’s duty of care is not dependent upon ownership, instead of whether the party has control over the premises. The law requires those who have control over premises to keep the premises safe and in repair. Further, in cases where two entities share control of premises, the law imposes the duty of care upon both of them.

Florida business owners have a duty to maintain their property to a reasonable standard of safety for their patrons. This duty includes the responsibility to keep public areas of the business free from dangerous conditions, such as broken glass, spilled liquids, or icy pathways. A business owner can only be held liable for a hazard that they either knew existed or should have known existed at the time of an accident. The Florida Court of Appeals recently addressed a case in which a grocery store was sued by a customer after they were injured when slipping on a hazardous substance in a shopping aisle.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was shopping at the defendant’s store when they slipped on a dangerous substance in the aisle and were injured. Based on the facts referenced in the appellate opinion, there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff to demonstrate how long the dangerous condition had existed prior to the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff sued the defendant in state court for negligence, alleging that the defendant negligently failed to maintain their store to a safe condition and that the plaintiff was injured as a result.

The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, finding that a valid Florida premises liability claim requires a plaintiff to show with evidence that the defendant had actual, or constructive knowledge of a hazard and negligently failed to act to remediate the hazard. Defendants cannot be held liable for conditions that they could not have been in a position to cure. Because the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition, the claim failed under Florida law.

Because of Florida’s mild weather, it is unsurprising that many people choose to spend their winter holiday enjoying the state’s beaches and sunshine. While out and about this holiday season, it is still important to be cautious of your surroundings and environment, especially with crowds. When near water, there are often sharp rocks, poorly maintained infrastructure, or areas particularly prone to accidents or injuries taking place. To best protect yourself and your loved ones, it is crucial to stay vigilant this holiday season.

In a recent District Court of Appeal decision, the court had to consider a negligence action resulting from a slip and fall that took place on a Florida seawall dock. In the case in question, the plaintiff alleged breaches of duty by the defendant stemming from the defendant’s failure to safely maintain its premises and their failure to warn the plaintiff of the seawall’s dangerous condition. The plaintiff was using a specific part of the dock for the first time when he tripped and fell because of a divot. In response, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident and that they did not owe a duty to warn the plaintiff because the cracked seawall from which the plaintiff was injured was open and obvious, so the plaintiff’s knowledge was equal to or greater than the defendant’s.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment, stating that the divot on which the plaintiff tripped was clearly visible and should have been obvious to the plaintiff. Although the defendant technically owed a duty to warn the plaintiff and to maintain its premises safely, the open and obvious nature of the condition precluded a finding of breached duty from the defendant.