JUAN MARIA CASTANEDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GENERAL BUILDING SERVICES CORPORATION, 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.
The court reversed summary judgment for a cleaning service in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the undisputed presence of water and paper towels at the accident scene created a genuine issue of material fact requiring jury determination.
A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case bears the burden of completely dispelling the plaintiff's theory that the defendant created a dangerous condition, and the mere existence of undisputed facts (water and paper towels on the floor) that could support liability requires submission to a jury.
[1] In a slip-and-fall case, the defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of completely dispelling the plaintiff's theory that the defendant created a dangerous…
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 intelligence“The rule simply is that the burden to prove the non-existence of genuine triable issues is on the moving party, and the burden of proving the existence of such issues is not shifted to the opposing party until the movant has successfully met his burden.”
Establishing the standard for summary judgment motions in Florida.
Plaintiff was injured in a slip-and-fall accident at a Publix supermarket allegedly caused by water and paper towels left on the floor by a cleaning s…
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 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff brought this action against a cleaning service for a slip and fall accident which occurred at a Publix supermarket. We reverse the summary judgment ordered in the service’s favor. As stated in Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla.1966):
The rule simply is that the burden to prove the non-existence of genuine triable issues is on the moving party, and the burden of proving the existence of such issues is not shifted to the opposing party until the movant has successfully met his burden.
It was alleged and undisputed that there was water and paper towels at the scene where claimant allegedly slipped. In order for the service to prevail in its effort to have summary judgment granted in its favor, it was its duty to completely dispel the plaintiffs theory that the service had created a dangerous condition by leaving water and paper towels on the floor. Plaintiff did not have to come forward with any countervailing evidence to defend against the cleaning company’s motion for summary judgment. See Colon v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., 721 So. 2d 769, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(citing to Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)) and observing “[i]f the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it.” (Emphasis added in Outback Steakhouse.)
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Colon v. Outback Steakhouse OF Fla., Inc., 721 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)