Legal Topics

COURT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED FOR DEFENDANT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE– GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTED ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET AT THE TIME OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL, AS WELL AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF IT 

Feb 14th, 2025 in by admin

COURT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED FOR DEFENDANT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE– GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTED ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET AT THE TIME OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL, AS WELL AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF IT

Ruth v. Guerrieri Management Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2359 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 22, 2024):

The plaintiff entered a Taco Bell intending to use its restroom before ordering. She testified that as she was walking inside the restroom she slipped and fell on a wet floor that had been freshly mopped and sustained injuries.

The plaintiff testified there was no rain on that date and that she immediately walked to the restroom upon entering the restaurant. The hallway floor was not wet, and she did not notice any signage as she entered the restaurant and entered the restroom.

While the plaintiff admitted that a photograph taken after the incident showed a wet floor sign in the hallway, she explained that the sign was located at the corner of the hallway leading into the dining room and was not visible to patrons until they were exiting and walking back into the dining room. There was no dispute that there was no wet floor sign inside the restroom or immediately outside of it.

The plaintiff testified she was not looking down directly at her feet when she entered the restroom and only felt the wetness when she slipped. Taco Bell’s witness stated that the floor was visibly mopped and that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to see the visibly mopped floor and ignoring the signage. The defendant admitted that the floor had been recently mopped with a lightly dampened mop but disputed that the floor was wet at the time of the incident.

The manager admitted that the floors were mopped prior to the fall, “guessing” the mopping had taken place 30 minutes before it. The manager confirmed that the floors were supposed to be “dry mopped,” using a mop that is barely moist. The manager also testified the store had only two wet floor signs and there was nothing taped to the door to indicate that the restroom had been mopped. The depositions of the plaintiff and the manager were contradictory on several points.

The trial court erroneously granted summary judgment for Taco Bell, agreeing with it that there was no evidence to support that the floor was wet at the time of the fall besides the plaintiff’s testimony. However, the record contained genuine issues of material fact which precluded summary judgment.