COURT AFFIRMS SUMMARY JUDGMENT—USING A BENCH AS A STEPSTOOL BRINGS WITH IT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS RISK–THERE WAS NO HIDDEN DANGER AND NO DUTY TO WARN OF AN OBVIOUS RISK.

Walker v. M633 LLC, d/b/a Chick-Fil-A of Deerwood Park, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D380 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 27, 2026):

The plaintiff fell in the playground-area at a Chick-Fil-A. Her three-year-old son was playing there, and when he called for her and she couldn’t see him, she stood on one of the benches which was not affixed to the ground and fell.

She sued for negligence (unsafe premises, inadequate lighting, failure to warn), claiming that by not securing the bench in the play area, the defendant breached its duty to her by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, failing to provide adequate lighting and failing to warn her of a foreseeable and unreasonably dangerous condition.

The trial court entered summary judgment for Chick-fil-A, which the court affirmed. 

The appellate court emphasized the lack of genuine issues of fact on foreseeability and notice: the bench had been used for years without issue, employees cleaned and inspected it, and both sides essentially treated it as sturdy and safe for its intended purpose. 

The court held it was not foreseeable that an adult would use a seating bench as a stepstool, and if she did, ordinary care included checking whether it was suitable for that use.

The court also treated the risk as open and obvious: using something not designed as a stepstool comes with an obvious risk, and the fact the bench was not bolted down was easily discoverable with due care. 

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s “insufficient lighting” argument on causation grounds. While she claimed that the upper area of the playground was inadequately lit, there was no causal link between that failing, and the injury she sustained when she stepped on the bench.

Ultimately, the court saw the fall as the result of the plaintiff’s choice to stand on a bench that lacked rails or features to assist with standing, and concluded that there was no dangerous condition created by the restaurant as a matter of law, affirming entry of summary judgment for the restaurant.