SHIRLEY MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
BIG C TRADING, INC., ETC., 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.
In a slip-and-fall case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for a supermarket where a customer fell on a grape. The court held that the mere presence of nearby employees is insufficient to establish constructive notice of a hazard without evidence showing how long the hazard was present.
The presence of nearby employees cannot support an inference of constructive notice without evidence showing the hazard was present for a sufficient period of time. Mere speculation that employees could or should have seen the grape is insufficient to establish that the landowner had reasonable notice of the condition.
[1] A landowner is not liable for a slip-and-fall accident caused by a foreign substance on the floor unless the plaintiff proves the landowner had actual or constructive not…
[2] Constructive notice of a dangerous condition on a landowner's premises requires evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to allow the landowner…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there was no evidence to indicate that the grape had been on the floor for any length of time such as thawing, cart tracks, footprints or other indicia of constructive notice.”
Establishes the critical missing element—evidence of how long the hazard was present—which is necessary to prove constructive notice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShirley Miller slipped and fell on a grape in Big C Trading, Inc.'s supermarket. Two store employees were nearby when the plaintiff fell. There was no…
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 Duty To Inspect cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We affirm a summary judgment entered for the defendant supermarket in a slip-on-a-grape-and-fall case. As in the uncannily similar case of Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 546 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989),
[tjhere was no evidence to indicate that the grape had been on the floor for any length of time such as thawing, cart tracks, footprints or other indicia of constructive notice.
Compare, e.g., Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 534 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1988). The plaintiff relies, however, on evidence that two store employees were nearby when she fell which, she argues, gives rise to an inference that they should have known and were therefore on constructive notice of the grape’s presence before the accident. We do not agree with this argument simply because, since there is no indication as to how long the grape was there, there can be nothing but speculation to support the claim that the employees could, let alone should, have seen it in time to remove it. Thus, in considering the conceptually identical issue of the effect of a failure timely to inspect the premises, the law is that:
the fact there was no inspection for a given length of time in itself provides no proof that the defect was actually there for a sufficient period to place a landowner on reasonable notice of its existence. Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 528 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); McCanick v. W.J.A. Realty Limited Partnership, 516 So. 2d 1129, 1130 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. King, 592 So. 2d 705, 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 602 So. 2d 942 (Fla.1992). In reaching this conclusion, we disagree with the statement in Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), referring to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), that:
the fact that an employee may be able to see the location of a puddle from his or her workplace has been held to be some circumstantial evidence of constructive knowledge of the condition’s existence.
The Guenther case does not stand for that proposition. To the contrary, we held there that such evidence only “bolsters our conclusion” that:
testimony that the liquid was dirty and scuffed and had several tracks running through it was ... adequate to impute constructive notice of the hazardous condition to the store manager. Guenther, 395 So. 2d at 246.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., 692 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…y direct evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence either the identity of the substance or how long the dangerous condition had existed. See, e.g., Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1961); Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 650 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1994); Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Defendant contends that even if the substance were wax, there is no proof that the slippery condition causing plaintif…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Mazzie, 707 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…itees who slip and fall as a result of a foreign substance on the floor when the invitee provides no competent evidence of actual or constructive knowledge by the premises owner of the dangerous condition. Id; see also Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 650 So. 2d 990 (Fla.1994); Silver Springs Moose Lodge No. 1199 v. Orman, 631 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte, 5…
-
Markowitz v. Helen Homes OF Kendall Corp., 736 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…motion and entered Final Summary Judgment. We affirm the entry of Final Summary Judgment because the Markowitzes are unable to prove that the nursing home had actual or constructive knowledge of the spilt grape. See Miller v. Big C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Publix Super Market, Inc. v. Sanchez, 700 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). There is no evidence in the record to support the Markowitzes’ contention that because three nurses were in the vicinity of the fall they saw or sh…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 546 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 528 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Zayre Corp. v. Bryant, 528 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. King, 592 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Lorraine M. Greenleaf and her Husband v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- McCANICK v. W.J.A. Realty Ltd. P'ship, 516 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)