ANA C. LORENZO, APPELLANT,
v.
FOREVER 21 RETAIL, 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.
Ana C. Lorenzo appealed from summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case against Forever 21 Retail, Inc. The Florida appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Lorenzo's testimony about a substance on the floor was insufficient to establish that Forever 21 had constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Forever 21, holding that Lorenzo's testimony was insufficient to create a jury issue. Such testimony must be accompanied by additional facts from which a jury can reasonably conclude the substance had been on the floor long enough to become discolored, rather than requiring the jury to assume facts about the substance's original condition or stack inferences about the duration of the hazard.
[1] A plaintiff's testimony that a substance on the floor was "oily," "dirty," and "dark" is insufficient to create a jury issue regarding constructive notice without additio…
[2] Evidence that a substance was "not hot" is insufficient to establish constructive notice without requiring the fact-finder to impermissibly stack inferences to conclude t…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“For such testimony to create a jury issue, the testimony must be accompanied by ... some additional fact or facts from which the jury can reasonably conclude that the substance was on the floor long enough to have become discolored without assuming other facts, such as the substance, in its original condition, was not 'oily,' 'dirty' and 'dark'”
Establishes the legal standard that testimony about a substance's appearance must be accompanied by additional facts about duration to create a jury question
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLorenzo slipped and fell on a substance on the floor at a Forever 21 retail location. Lorenzo testified about the appearance of the substance on the f…
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 Jury Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, 211 So.3d 275, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant and holding that plaintiff's testimony that the substance on the floor was "oily," "dirty," and "dark" was "insufficient to create a jury issue. For such testimony to create a jury issue, the testimony must be accompanied by ... some additional fact or facts from which the jury can reasonably conclude that the substance was on the floor long enough to have become discolored without assuming other facts, such as the substance, in its original condition, was not 'oily,' 'dirty' and 'dark' "); Wilson-Greene v. City of Miami, 208 So.3d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (reversing summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, despite evidence that the soup upon which plaintiff slipped and fell was "not hot," because such evidence was insufficient to establish defendant's constructive notice without requiring the fact-finder to impermissibly stack inferences in order to conclude that the soup had been on the floor long enough to cool); Wilson v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 559 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding jury may not speculate as to whether grocery store should have known about a dangerous condition where there was no evidence *546of how long the substance had been on the floor prior to the plaintiff's fall); Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed when jury would have had to stack inferences to conclude that a dinner tray had been overfilled, causing gravy to spill on the floor, later causing plaintiff to slip).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. OF Fla., 211 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Isaac v. State, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Harriette Wilson-Greene v. The City OF Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Wilson v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 559 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)