MARILYN REYNOLDS
v.
BELK, INC., AND VILLAGE LAKE PROMENADE, LLC D/B/A LAKE SQUARE MALL

Fla. 5th DCA | 2025-12-19
No. 2024-1749
Edwards, J., Jay, C.J., Harris, J., Mosley, J.
2025 FL 12290 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2025)

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.

Holding

Summary judgment for a store owner in a trip-and-fall case is improper when the evidence does not conclusively, clearly, and completely negate the plaintiff's sworn testimony that she was unaware of the hazard before the fall occurred. Video screenshots that fail to depict the actual hazard or the plaintiff's visual perspective cannot support summary judgment on the grounds that the danger was open and obvious.

Headnotes

[1] In a premises liability trip-and-fall case, summary judgment is improper when the defendant's evidence does not conclusively, clearly, and completely negate the plaintiff…

[2] Video evidence that fails to depict the actual hazard over which a plaintiff tripped or to show the plaintiff's visual perspective of the area is insufficient to establis…

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
Key Quotes

“None of the screen shots show the actual unsecured, wide-based, metal stanchion that caused her to trip, nor do they show Appellant actually looking at any of the stanchions that were located behind her. Thus, there is no support for the trial court's determination and bases for granting summary judgment, that as a matter of law, i.e., first, any danger presented was open and obvious and second, that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous.”

This establishes that the summary judgment evidence was facially insufficient to support the trial court's legal conclusions about the obviousness and danger of the hazard.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Marilyn Reynolds tripped over an unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion while shopping in a Belk store and sustained injuries. Belk moved for summary j…

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.

Topics
Open And Obvious Danger Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment Premises Liability Summary Judgment Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Open And Obvious Danger cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Remanded. Jay

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-1749 LT Case No. 2022-CA-002086-A _____________________________

MARILYN REYNOLDS,

Appellant,

v.

BELK, INC.,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Danny R. Mosley, Judge.

Sebastian C. Mejia, of Mejia Law Group, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

Clarence Harold Houston, III, of Carr Allison, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

December 19, 2025

EDWARDS, J.

Appellant, Marilyn Reynolds, appeals the summary final judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Belk, Inc., and the related order denying her motion for rehearing. Appellant claims that while a customer in the Belk store, she tripped over a certain unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. As summary judgment evidence, Appellee submitted several screen

In Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205, 206–07 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), we reversed summary judgment in favor of a defendant store owner where plaintiff tripped over a furniture

1 Appellee apparently provided a copy of the full video to the trial court the day before the summary judgment hearing and remarked about what could be seen as various portions of the video were played during the hearing. The trial court commented on and appeared to rely upon the video in granting summary judgment. However, the video was not filed with the lower court nor made a part of the record on appeal; therefore this Court cannot rely upon the video or any accounts or descriptions of what is shown in the video. See Brayton v. Brayton, 46 So. 3d 142, 144 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 2 Appellee did not present or rely on any testimony to support its motion.3 A copy of one of those screen shots, Exhibit F, is attached to our opinion, to illustrate that the stanchion over which Appellant fell is not depicted in that photographic evidence.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5

REVERSED and REMANDED.

JAY, C.J., and HARRIS JJ., concur.

4 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

_ r ome

AI LEESBURG-1, M2 1/2022

Ty b mia | Aw} : CT ae 1246223040 } | \ . . 4 a ~ - 2 —_ s . * = " ’ co) | — * > . a -TAgs -~ i e a2 WS = =, + & 7 a a : — =; = -— aa A Se ra Tm _ - y . an “s f4 tS, ~ y C4 . — - -_ rf ‘a 8

SK.

wT” t - + - . 4, . | a

EXHIBIT

ie F PAGE # 201

EXHIBIT

PAGE# 201

Footnotes
2 shots, which were still images excerpted from the store’s video.1 The screen shots were the only summary judgment evidence cited in, attached to, and relied upon in Appellee’s motion.2 The screen shots depict Appellant’s location relative to the store clerk and checkout desk, the store clerk assisting Appellant, and other people and things in the vicinity of where Appellant fell. The screen shots show webbing or rope stretched between the upright poles which we will have to assume are connected to the stanchions. None of the screen shots show the actual unsecured, wide-based, metal stanchion that caused her to trip, nor do they show Appellant actually looking at any of the stanchions that were located behind her.3 Thus, there is no support for the trial court’s determination and bases for granting summary judgment, that as a matter of law, i.e., first, any danger presented was open and obvious and second, that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous. There is an old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words; however, here, the screen shot pictures merit only three words: Reversed and Remanded.
3 trolley cart placed by one of the defendant’s employees in or adjacent to an aisle.4 In the current case, as in Muurahainen, each plaintiff had given sworn testimony that she had not perceived the thing over which she tripped prior to falling over it. Id. at 206. The summary judgment evidence in Muurahainen included video images from two different cameras showing the cart over which plaintiff tripped, unlike the absence of any images or testimonial descriptions of the stanchion in the current case. However, the video in Muurahainen did not duplicate plaintiff’s visual perspective of the cart nor did it show exactly how the trip and fall occurred. Id. at 207–08. We concluded in Muurahainen, as we now conclude here, that Appellee’s summary judgment evidence could not be said to have “conclusively, clearly, and completely negated Appellant’s sworn testimony,” id. at 207, that she was unaware of the item over which she tripped until the fall occurred. Triable issues of fact remain.
4 Muurahainen contains a detailed discussion of the relevant standard of review, the law applicable to summary judgment motions, landowners’ duties to invitees, and considerations relevant to trip and fall cases, which we need not repeat here. 5 We need not discuss or resolve the other issues raised by Appellant.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw