FLORENCE BROZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Summary judgment for store was properly granted in slip-and-fall case where plaintiff presented no evidence of how long a grape had been on the floor, precluding any inference of constructive notice.
A store owner cannot be held liable for a customer's slip-and-fall injury from a foreign object on the floor without evidence establishing how long the object had been present or other indicia of constructive notice.
[1] In a premises liability action based on a foreign object on the floor, the plaintiff must present evidence of the object's presence for a sufficient duration or other ind…
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 intelligencePlaintiff Florence Broz slipped on a grape in a Winn-Dixie store. The store presented evidence of routine floor inspections by the floor manager and c…
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 Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following this court’s opinion and decision rendered in Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 512 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) the cause recurred in the trial court. After deposition of the plaintiff and the store manager, the defendant moved for summary judgment; there being no evidence as to how long the grape had been on the floor, and the defense offering evidence that the floor was routinely inspected by the floor manager and that the thirty odd employees in the store at the time were constantly on alert as to debris on the floor. There was no evidence to indicate that thé grape had been on the floor for any length of time such as thawing, cart tracks, footprints or other indicia of constructive notice. Without this or similar information a jury verdict would be sheer speculation. Montgomery v. Florida Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973); Camina v. Parliament Ins. Co., 417 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, this appeal ensued and we affirm. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1961); Vance v. Miller, 360 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Justa Patricia Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ado fell. Therefore, Delgado was required to present some evidence Laundromax had constructive notice of the hazard. Because the mere presence of water on the floor is not enough to establish constructive notice, see Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 546 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the record must contain additional facts in support of liability, to create a permissible inference upon which Delgado could rely in defense against Laundro-max’s motion for summary judgment. See Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Wh…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte, 553 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…the possessor’s secondary duty to take action to protect invitees from the known dangerous condition. . See, Springer, supra. . See Haynes v. Lloyd, 533 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and the cases in n. 2 thereto, Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 546 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and the cases cited therein. .Of course, evidence as to this issue can be circumstantial, but see, Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., supra.…
-
State v. E.T., 560 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…whether the executive authority had sufficient or lawful evidence to institute the subject prosecution; nor do the courts mandamus executive authorities to institute prosecutions upon an alleged showing of criminal wrongdoing. See Thompson v. Reno, 546 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). If the courts ever launched into such heady and often political waters, it is thought that their judicial role as impartial arbiters would be severely compromised because they, rather than the prosecuting authorities, would be de…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Phoebe C. Trusell et vir, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961)
- Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1973)
- Isaac v. State, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 417 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gaines, 542 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Burse, 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 512 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Cuneo v. Cuneo, 229 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Vance v. Miller, 360 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)