ERROR TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT STATE HOW LONG THE PUDDLE OF WATER HAD BEEN ON THE FLOOR – – PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THERE WAS MORE THAN JUST A DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER
Carpio v. Western Beef of Florida, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D86 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 3, 2024):
The plaintiff testified she was exiting a walk-in freezer in front of the seafood department at a store, and fell to her knees causing injuries. She said she felt a splash of water as she fell, and saw dark dirty water on the floor with shopping cart wheel marks going through the water. She also noted she saw footprints in the water, and described that it was a puddle and not just drops; a lot of water. Several store employees saw her fall as corroborated by the store manager who said one or two employees were always stationed at the seafood department. There were no photos or videos.
The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff did not present evidence that the store had actual or constructive knowledge, because she could not meet her burden regarding how long the water was on the floor, and couldn’t establish defendant’s knowledge of water under section 768.0755.
The statute provides that a person injured in a slip and fall must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition, and should have taken action to remedy it. Constructive knowledge is shown either by a dangerous condition existing for a length of time that in the exercise of due care the establishment should have known of the condition, or that the condition occurred with regularity and therefore was foreseeable.
A plaintiff’s testimony regarding the condition and age of a foreign substance alone is not sufficient to create an issue of fact to preclude summary judgment. Instead, a plaintiff’s testimony must be accompanied by something more; namely some additional fact or facts from which a jury can reasonably conclude that the substance was on the floor long enough to establish constructive knowledge under the statute.
Florida courts have found that a plaintiff’s testimony alone can be sufficient to meet the “plus” requirement. Here, the record evidence was detailed enough that it could have enabled a jury to view the summary judgment evidence and infer that water was on the floor long enough that the business should have detected it.