PATRICIA MARKOWITZ AND ROBERT MARKOWITZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
HELEN HOMES OF KENDALL CORPORATION, A/K/A KENDALL HEALTH CARE PROPERTIES, D/B/A THE PALACE LIVING FACILITY, 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.
The Markowitzes sued a nursing home after Mrs. Markowitz slipped and fell on a grape, claiming the facility negligently failed to address a dangerous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment for the nursing home, and the appellate court affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
The nursing home did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the grape's presence on the floor, and the Markowitzes failed to establish that the nursing home's method of operation was negligent. Summary judgment for the nursing home was appropriate.
[1] A plaintiff in a premises liability case must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.
[2] Constructive notice of a dangerous condition may be established by showing the condition existed for a sufficient length of time to provide reasonable notice.
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“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.”
The court's central holding regarding the basis for affirming summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Markowitz slipped and fell on a grape in the main area of Helen Homes of Kendall Corporation nursing home while visiting her mother. Three nursin…
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 Actual Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a trial court Order granting defendant/Helen Homes of Kendall Corporation’s (“the nursing home”) Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the plaintiffs/Patricia and Robert Markowitz’s (“the Markowitzes”) Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm.
The Markowitzes brought suit against the nursing home alleging that Mrs. Mar-kowitz slipped and fell on a grape in the main area of the nursing home facility and sustained serious injuries while visiting her mother, a resident at the nursing home. The Complaint alleges that the nursing home knew or should have known of the dangerous condition but negligently failed to correct it.
After discovery, the nursing home moved for summary judgment contending that there was no evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the presence of the grape, or that the grape was on the floor for a sufficient length of time to provide it with constructive notice of its presence. The Markowitzes responded that three of the nursing home’s employees were engaged in a conversation in the immediate vicinity of the fall and should have been aware of the presence of the grape.
Additionally, the Markowitzes attached the affidavit of an expert nursing home administrator who stated that permitting elderly residents to carry food from the dining room to their room was unreasonably dangerous. The nursing home relied on the testimony of the nurses, who denied knowledge of the presence of the grape, and the deposition of the building supervisor and the housekeeper, who each testified that the nursing home’s policy was that common areas are swept and cleaned several times throughout the day.
The trial court granted the nursing home’s 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 should have seen the grape.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the grape was on the floor for a length of time that would place the nursing home on reasonable notice of its existence.
Additionally, the Markowitzes are unable to establish that the nursing home’s method of operation is negligent. Publix Super Market, Inc. v. Sanchez, 700 So. 2d at 406. There is no evidence of a previous instance where a grape or other food substance was on the floor and resulted in injury to a resident or visitor so as to put the nursing home on notice that they should be looking for food.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markowitz v. Helen Homes OF Kendall Corp., 826 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2002)…previous instance where a grape or other food substance was on the floor and [*263] resulted in injury to a resident or visitor so as to put the nursing home on notice that they should be looking for food. Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 736 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citations omitted). The present majority opinion relies on this Court’s opinion in Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla.2001), to quash the district court decision. I disagree. I would not extend the Owens…1 / 2
-
Lester's Diner II, Inc. v. Gilliam, 788 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…slipped and fell in a supermarket on a piece of brown banana peel failed to show the length of time the peel had been on the floor, and thus failed to establish supermarket’s constructive notice); see also Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall Corp., 736 So. 2d 775, (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999). In this case, appellee failed to prove through either actual or constructive notice that appellant knew or should have known of the substance on the floor or of a dangerous condition. See W…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. BIG C Trading, Inc., 641 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Publix Super Mkt., Inc. v. Sanchez, 700 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)