KAY ANN KITCHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
EBONITE RECREATION CENTERS, 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.
Kay Ann Kitchen appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ebonite Recreation Centers in her premises liability case arising from a slip-and-fall at a bowling alley. The court reversed, finding that Kitchen's deposition testimony created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Ebonite negligently maintained the bowling lanes.
The court reversed the summary judgment because Kitchen's deposition testimony was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to Ebonite's liability. Summary judgment was improper because Kitchen's testimony raised factual questions about the existence of a hazardous condition and Ebonite's negligence in maintaining the lanes.
[1] A trial court may grant summary judgment only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show no genuine issue of mater…
[2] A party moving for summary judgment must conclusively demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
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 trial court can grant a motion for summary judgment only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKitchen slipped and fell while at Ebonite's bowling alley after approximately 30-35 minutes of bowling. She testified that she fell when attempting to…
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Kay Ann Kitchen appeals the final order entered by the trial court granting Ebonite Recreation Centers’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her personal injury lawsuit. Concluding that genuine issues of material facts are in dispute, we reverse.
Kitchen filed suit against Ebonite asserting a claim of premises liability and seeking damages for injuries which she sustained when she slipped and fell while at its bowling alley. The complaint alleged that Ebonite had negligently maintained the lanes on which Kitchen was bowling by allowing the floor behind the bowling line to be waxed causing Kitchen to slip and fall. Ebonite filed two motions for summary judgment which were denied by the trial court.
However, the trial court granted Ebonite’s third motion for summary judgment which alleged that the area where Kitchen fell was free of any hazardous or dangerous conditions, that there was no record evidence demonstrating that Ebonite negligently maintained the bowling lanes, and that there was no record evidence that the negligent condition was well-known to Ebonite or that Ebonite should have known of it.
A trial court can grant a motion for summary judgment only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); see Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So. 2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996).
A party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the non-moving party. See Bruckner v. City of Dania Beach, 823 So. 2d 167, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
If 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 issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it. Id. When reviewing the entry of summary judgment, “an appellate court must examine the record and any supporting affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683, 684 (Fla.2000).
In her deposition, Kitchen testified that on the day of the accident, after about 3CM5 minutes at the bowling alley, she attempted to help a student learn how to throw the ball correctly by showing her to take a few steps and then let the ball go, “and that’s when I slipped, and I was not across the line.” She stated that she had “never been on a bowling floor that was slick like that, greasy like.” Kitchen stated that there wasn’t any question that “there was something on the floor.” When asked if she saw any substance on the floor before she slipped, Kitchen stated: “It was real shiny, but I couldn’t — very shiny.... It looked like grease to me, and that’s all I can tell you. And it wasn’t just in my lane, it was in a lot of lanes.”
The instant summary judgment is reversed because Kitchen’s deposition testimony was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to Ebonite’s liability. See Troya v. Miami Beach Health Care Group, Inc., 780 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…hts Act, section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1998). She also alleged a claim for retaliation. The trial court granted a direct verdict for .Speedway on that count, and Du-pont has not cross-appealed. . See Kitchen v. Ebonite Recreation Centers, Inc., 856 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Quilling v. County of Sumter, 726 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Green v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). . See North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Vera v. Adeland, 88…
-
Petruska v. Smartparks-Silver Springs, Inc., 914 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c); see also Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So. 2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Kitchen v. Ebonite Recreation Ctrs., Inc., 856 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). ■ The party moving for summary judgment must meet its burden of showing conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Kitchen; Krol; Hoch v. Rissman…
-
Cherry C. Villanueva v. Reynolds, 159 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…(Fla. 2001). “A party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the nonmoving party.” Kitchen v. Ebonite Recreation Ctrs., Inc., 856 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Bruckner v. City of Dania Beach, 823 So. 2d 167, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). “If the evidencé raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000)
- Bruckner v. City OF Dania Beach, 823 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1996)
- Troya v. Miami Beach Health Care Grp., Inc., 780 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)