CARLA M. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CIRCLE K CORPORATION N/K/A CIRCLE K 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.
Appellant Johnson appealed a summary judgment dismissal of her trip-and-fall negligence case against Circle K. The court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the alleged dangerous condition (a raised seam between asphalt and concrete pavement) was open and obvious as a matter of law.
A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious. The summary judgment must be reversed because the burden of proof for summary judgment is significantly greater than for a directed verdict, and when reviewing the record in light of the appellant's testimony about the condition, reasonable doubt exists about whether the condition was actually open and obvious.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment must conclusively demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-mov…
[2] Doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party on a motion for summary judgment.
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“if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.”
Establishes the stringent standard for summary judgment and requires all doubts to favor the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson tripped and fell in a Circle K parking lot at the point where asphalt pavement met concrete pavement. She testified at her deposition that the…
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 Open And Obvious Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
Appellant seeks review of an adverse summary final judgment entered in her trip-and-fall negligence case. Because we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, we reverse.
To establish entitlement to a summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate conclusively that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, even after all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the party opposing the summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
When reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, our task is to determine from the record whether a genuine issue exists as to a material fact. “[A]ll doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.” Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
Succinctly put, “if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Jones v. Directors Guild of America, Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The only discovery in this case was appellant’s deposition, which included as exhibits photographs of the portion of pavement where appellant claimed that she tripped and fell.
The trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious. This was, in turn, apparently based upon the trial court’s review of the photographs.
However, appellant testified at her deposition that she tripped and fell where an asphalt portion of the parking lot met a concrete portion. She said that, at that point, “it’s just raised up just a little bit, not enough really to notice, ... where the pavement has sunk in a little.” Reviewing the record, including the photographs, in light of this testimony, we are of the opinion that a genuine dispute exists as to whether the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious.
We note that Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), upon which the trial court relied, is distinguishable for several reasons, not the least of which is that it involved the propriety of a directed verdict, not a summary judgment. The burden on a party seeking the latter is significantly greater than that on a party seeking the former. See, e.g., Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1966); Reaves v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 569 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Vilardebo v. Keene Corp., 431 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The summary final judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyman Lawrence v. PEP Boys-Manny MOE & Jack, Inc., 842 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…990). We conclude, however, that a genuine dispute exists with respect to whether the purported dangerous condition was open and obvious, particularly when the affidavit of Lawrence is factored into the equation. See Johnson v. Circle K Corporation, 734 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We are likewise unable to tell from the record, as supplemented by the affidavit, whether the landowner discharged its duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. See Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fl…
-
Moultrie v. Consol. Stores Int'l Corp., 764 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…mmary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate conclusively that ho genuine issue exists as to any material fact, even after all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the party opposing the summary judgment.” See Johnson v. Circle K. Corp., 734 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), citing Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966). If the record raises “any issue of material fact, if it would permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the…
-
Acosta, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, 39 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Reciprocal v. Walker, 765 So. 2d 229, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In determining whether there is a disputed issue of material fact, courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Johnson v. Circle K Corp., 734 So. 2d 536, 536-37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). However, where summary judgment turns on a pure question of law, such as the interpretation of an unambiguous contract provision, there are no relevant factual disputes. See Fernandez v. Homestar at Miller Cove, Inc., 93…
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
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)
- Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Vilardebo v. Keene Corp., 431 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Reaves v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 569 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)