SARAH BENSALAH
v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.
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.
A business invitee alleging a slip-and-fall on a transitory substance must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of that substance; proof of negligent maintenance alone is insufficient under § 768.0755.
[1] Under Florida Statute § 768.0755, a business invitee suing for injuries from a slip and fall on a transitory substance must establish that the business owner had actual o…
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“Under the 2002 statute, a plaintiff could succeed in a slip and fall case by showing 'the business premises acted negligently by failing to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premises,' without showing the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the transitory foreign substance. Under the 2010 statute, however, the same plaintiff would be unable to successfully assert such a cause of action, no matter how persuasive or compelling the evidence the plaintiff had in support of the claim.”
Discussion of the statutory evolution of slip-and-fall liability
Sarah Bensalah slipped and fell on a transitory substance at a Whole Foods Market location in Miami-Dade County.…
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 Transitory Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. § 768.0755, Fla. Stat. (2016); Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[W]here a business invitee slips and falls on a ‘transitory substance’ in a business establishment as occurred here, proof of the breach element of the claim against an owner of the establishment is statutorily constrained by section 768.0755 of the Florida Statutes (2013).”); Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“Under the 2002 statute, a plaintiff could succeed in a slip and fall case by showing ‘the business premises acted negligently by failing to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premises,’ without showing the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the transitory foreign substance. Under the 2010 statute, however, the same plaintiff would be unable to successfully assert such a cause of action, no matter how persuasive or compelling the evidence the plaintiff had in support of the claim.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Blanco, 373 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. OF Fla., 211 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGRUDER, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)