MARY CAMINA AND LEO CAMINA, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
PARLIAMENT INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND CLASSIC FASHIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court reversed directed verdict for store owner, holding that circumstantial evidence of a thawed, dirty, and splattered ice cream condition on the floor was sufficient to raise a jury question on constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
Circumstantial evidence that ice cream on a store floor was thawed, dirty, and splattered is sufficient to create a jury question on whether the storeowner had constructive notice of a dangerous condition, despite plaintiff's inability to prove the exact duration the hazard existed.
[1] In a premises liability case, circumstantial evidence regarding the condition of a hazard (such as thawed, dirty, and splattered ice cream) is sufficient to raise a jury…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show that a dangerous condition existed for such a length of time so as to charge the storeowner with constructive notice”
Court's holding on sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish constructive notice
A plaintiff slipped and fell on thawed ice cream in the entranceway of a store. The plaintiff could not provide direct testimony about how long the ic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ordinary And Reasonable Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order directing a verdict for the defendant upon a holding that notwithstanding the plaintiff’s inability to elicit direct testimony as to the length of time that the thawed ice cream upon which she slipped and fell had been on the floor of the entranceway to the defendant’s store, an area which a storekeeper has a duty to maintain with the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care, Burmeister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 403 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show that a dangerous condition existed for such a length of time so as to charge the storeowner with constructive notice, Schmidt v. Bowl American Florida, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and the evidence here that, inter alia, the ice cream was thawed, dirty and splattered, although susceptible of the inference that the plaintiff’s slip and fall had created the condition, was equally susceptible of the inference that the condition existed beforehand, Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla.1973); Bur-meister v. American Motorists Insurance Co., supra; Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Lee v. Southland Corporation, 253 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), so as to make the issue of the defendant’s constructive notice of the condition one to be resolved by a jury, Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., supra.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Williams, 264 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Schmidt v. Bowl Am. Fla., Inc., 358 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Grizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Arvella Burmeister v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 403 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- LEE v. The Southland Corp., 253 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)