Miami-Dade County v. Martin, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2614 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 10, 2025):

The plaintiff stepped into, and fell through, an uncovered county-owned water meter box while walking home from a dinner party in downtown Miami. She did not take any photos on the night of the incident, and she went to the emergency room the following morning for treatment.

Two days later, the plaintiff returned and took a photograph of the water meter box, which was then covered and cracked. A month later, she returned again, removed the cover, and took several photographs. One showed brown leaves inside the water meter box. There was no evidence indicating when or how the leaves entered the box.

The plaintiff sued the county a year later for negligent maintenance of the water meter cover. At trial, she called the water and sewer department’s customer service manager, who testified that meter readers are trained to inspect the boxes they service. She also presented evidence that there were no records of complaints, repairs, or inspections of the subject meter box before her accident.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the county moved for a directed verdict, arguing the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the county had actual or constructive notice of the missing cover, and that her claims depended on improper inference stacking.

The county presented evidence that water meter boxes often contain leaves, which can enter through the sides of the lid even when it is properly in place, or when the cover is removed. The customer service representative also testified that the monthly and quarterly reports for the water meters in that area showed no missing covers before the incident.

The county argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motion because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of constructive notice without improper inference stacking. The appellate court agreed.

To recover for injuries from a slip and fall, a plaintiff must show that the party responsible for the premises had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Constructive notice may be shown by evidence that the condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the defendant should have known of it, or by showing the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable.

Here, the plaintiff conceded the county did not have actual notice of the condition that caused her fall. As for constructive notice, her evidence hinged on the July photograph taken 2 months after the accident depicting brown leaves in the water box.

To conclude the county had constructive notice that the cover was missing before the accident, the jury would have had to infer, at minimum, that (1) the leaves shown in the July photograph entered the water meter box while the cover was missing; (2) the leaves were initially green when they entered; (3) the leaves did not enter when the lid was on; (4) the leaves entered before the plaintiff’s fall; (5) the leaves were inside the box at the time of the fall; and (6) a reasonably diligent inspection by the county would have revealed the missing cover before the accident. Because this required an impermissible stacking of inferences, and because the plaintiff offered no evidence of how long the defective condition (the missing water meter cover) existed before her fall, the verdict was based on improper inference stacking.

The court reversed for entry of final judgment for the county.