ANITA MIRANDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HOME DEPOT, 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.
Anita Miranda was injured at Home Depot when she struck her eye on a ladder while attempting to retrieve a planter from a bottom shelf. The court affirmed summary judgment for Home Depot, holding that the store had no duty to anticipate the unusual and unforeseeable manner in which Miranda injured herself.
Home Depot breached no duty to its customer and was entitled to summary judgment. The manner in which Miranda injured herself was neither probable nor foreseeable, and thus the store had no duty to guard against such an unusual occurrence.
[1] A store owner is not liable for injuries caused by a condition on the land that is known or obvious to an invitee, unless the owner should anticipate the harm despite the…
[2] A store owner may not be liable for injuries resulting from a customer's unusual conduct that was neither probable nor foreseeable.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The foreseeable risk of harm acknowledged in Nichols was that "customers, inexperienced in scaling ladders and unknowledgeable about the weights of items in the overhead areas, [would climb] ... ladders to retrieve those items when they found the floor stock depleted ánd assistance not forthcoming."”
Distinguishes the foreseeable risk in Nichols from the unforeseeable manner of injury in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiranda was shopping at Home Depot and saw a planter on a bottom display shelf blocked by a ladder. Unable to find an employee to retrieve it, Miranda…
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 Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 343A cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anita Miranda was shopping at the building materials store, Home Depot, when she saw a planter she was interested in purchasing. The planter was on a bottom display shelf. A ladder in front of the shelf blocked access to the planter. According to Miranda, when she was unsuccessful in finding an employee to get the planter for her, she projected her head and shoulders and upper torso through the ladder in order to retrieve the planter for herself. Then, by standing erect or withdrawing on other than the same plane by which she had injected her body through the ladder, she hit her right eye on a cross bar of the ladder and cut open an incision from previous cataract surgery. Miranda brought the instant negligence suit against Home Depot, Inc. Thereafter, the store moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no breach of reasonable care and that the presence of the ladder was open and obvious, making Miranda’s conduct the sole proximate cause of the accident. The trial court entered summary final judgment in Home Depot’s favor. We affirm.
In Nichols v. Home Depot, Inc., 541 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the court held that genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment in the store owner’s favor where a customer climbed a store ladder, reached for merchandise, lost his balance, and fell to the floor. Miranda, citing Nichols, claims that ladders on the store’s selling floor represent an unreasonable risk of harm to customers and thus the relative negligence of the parties in the instant case creates a question of fact precluding summary judgment. We disagree. The foreseeable risk of harm acknowledged in Nichols was that “customers, inexperienced in scaling ladders and unknowledgeable about the weights of items in the overhead areas, [would climb] ... ladders to retrieve those items when they found the floor stock depleted ánd assistance not forthcoming.” Id. at 642.
As stated in Stahl v. Metropolitan Dade County, 438 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983):
Not every negligent act of omission or commission gives rise to a cause of action for injuries sustained by another. It is only when injury to a person ... has resulted directly and in ordinary natural sequence from a negligent act without the intervention of any independent efficient cause, or is such as ordinarily and naturally should have been regarded as a probable, not a mere possible, result of the negligent act, that such injured person is entitled to recover damages as compensation for his loss, (emphasis added).
Id. at 19, (quoting Pope v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., 120 So. 2d 227, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), cert. denied, 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961) (footnotes omitted), citing Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Mullin, 70 Fla. 450, 70 So. 467 (1915)).
In the instant case, appellant’s injury was the result of an unusual occurrence, the customer reaching through the ladder, and then forgetting her stance, and withdrawing in a manner which caused her to hit the cross bar she had moments earlier maneuvered through. It was neither probable nor foreseeable that someone would injure themselves in this manner. Thus, there was no breach of duty in failing to guard against the injury which occurred. See Pope, 120 So. 2d at 229.
In Casby v. Flint, 520 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1988), the supreme court cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965), which states:
A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.
We conclude, as a matter of law, that Home Depot breached no duty to its customer when it failed to anticipate the harm which occurred in the instant case.
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 213 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…planter on a display shelf which was blocked by a ladder, “projected her head and shoulders and upper torso through the ladder,” and after standing up, hit a cross bar on the ladder and injured her right eye, leading to her suit against Home Depot. 604 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In moving for summary judgment, Home Depot argued that “there was no breach of reasonable care and that the presence of the ladder was open and obvious, making .Miranda’s conduct the sole proximate cause of the accident.” I…
-
Kopf v. City OF Miami Beach, 653 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…court attributed to “negligent maintenance of the facility....” 492 So. 2d at 1312.3 This court has repeatedly relied on Restatement section 343A in cases involving negligent maintenance or similar negligent conduct. See Miranda v. Home Depot, Inc., 604 So. 2d 1237, 1238-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A; alleged negligent placement of ladder); La Villarena, Inc. v. Acosta, 597 So. 2d 336, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A; wet, slippery floor)…
-
Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP (S.D. Fla. 2022)…eory that the carts, coupled with the garage door, created a dangerous condition, the Motion would be granted because “[i]t was neither probable nor foreseeable that someone would injure themselves in this manner.” See Miranda v. Home Depot, Inc., 604 So. 2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). There is no evidence on the record that Defendant could have reasonably anticipated that Plaintiff, in trying to pull apart two carts, would pull the carts with such force that when the carts became loose, her body would…
Authorities Cited
- Stahl v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 438 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc. v. Doyle Pope, 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1961)
- Doyle Pope v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc., 120 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Mullin, 70 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1915)
- Casby v. Flint, 520 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1988)
- Nichols v. Home Depot, Inc., 541 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)