COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARMANDO MARSAN, 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.
Costco appeals a judgment in a slip-and-fall case where a customer was injured by detergent that leaked from another customer's container. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that evidence of prior similar incidents was properly admitted to establish constructive notice of dangerous conditions.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior similar accidents, as such evidence may establish constructive notice by showing that dangerous conditions occurred with regularity and were foreseeable. The jury's negligence finding was supported by evidence that the store's single hourly floor walk by one employee was insufficient to discover and remedy hazardous conditions.
[1] Evidence of prior similar accidents is admissible to establish constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior accidents to prove constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
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“a plaintiff may use evidence of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of prior or subsequent accidents to prove constructive notice of the dangerous character of a condition”
Establishes the admissibility of prior accident evidence to establish constructive notice, citing Nance v. Winn Dixie
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArmando Marsan slipped and fell on a puddle of liquid laundry detergent at Costco that had leaked from a customer's container waiting in the checkout …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Costco, the defendant below, appeals from a final judgment for plaintiff in a slip and fall suit. We affirm.
Armando Marsan was shopping at Costco when he stepped in a puddle of liquid laundry detergent, slipped, and fell. The detergent had leaked from a container of a customer who was waiting in line to pay. Marsan ruptured a tendon and fractured a bone in his ankle; he required two surgeries, including a fusion with surgical screws.
During discovery, Costco answered interrogatories about prior slip and fall accidents at that store location, admitting that twenty-two such incidents had occurred before plaintiffs accident. Eighteen of the falls involved liquid or semi-liquid substances; five involved detergents or soaps; five occurred in the area where Marsan had fallen.
The trial court denied Costco’s motion in limine to prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence of those other accidents at that Costco location within three years of plaintiffs accident.1 In doing so, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Maryland Maint. Serv. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(holding that constructive notice may be established “by showing that the condition occurred with regularity and, consequently, was foreseeable.”); Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that “a plaintiff may use evidence of the occurrence or nonoccurrence of prior or subsequent accidents to prove constructive notice of the dangerous character of a condition.”).
Moreover, the jury’s finding that Costco was negligent is supported by testimony by the company’s representative that each 135,000 square foot store is patrolled only once each hour in a “floor walk” by an assigned “Member Service Operative,” a security officer. Each floor walk lasted thirty to forty minutes: the employee was required to check the security of warehouse doors; check refrigeration temperature controls; and look for potentially dangerous conditions throughout the entire store.
We find no prejudice to defendant in the trial court’s use of the itemized verdict form.
AFFIRMED.
. Costco never requested a jury instruction from the court that the prior incidents were merely evidence of, and not proof of, negligence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. SUN Time Corp., 47 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…t complaint); Baker v. Lane County, 37 Or.App. 87, 586 P. 2d 114, 117-18 (1978) (no other instances of children being injured at fairgrounds by reaching through outside fence to hold rope tethering horses). See also Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Marsan, 823 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Williams v. Madden 588 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). McCormick highlights why the admissibility of non-accidents as well as actual accidents is only fair. [I]t would seem perverse to tell a jury that one or two persons bes…
Authorities Cited
- Anne E. Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Md. Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Vittorio Palmieri and Bertha Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)