NO ERROR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT BANK IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE—THE BANK OWED NO DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF WHO FELL WHEN WALKING UP TO A DRIVE THROUGH ATM

Morrisee v. Capital City Bank, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D290 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 5, 2025):

The plaintiff went to use the defendant’s 24-hour drive-through ATM, but because she feared her vehicle was too large to fit, she walked up to the ATM instead of driving up to it. There were no sidewalks or pedestrian pathways suggesting or supporting that the ATM was designed for pedestrian use. Unfortunately, as she approached, she slipped and fell on an oil slick on the ground.

The court found that subsection 2 of section 768.0755 applied (and not on subsection one which addresses injuries from falling on transitory foreign substances, which both parties had argued). Subsection 2 makes it clear that the statute does not affect any common law duty of care owed by a person or entity in control of a business premises.

While the court found that the plaintiff was unquestionably an “invitee,” the bank’s duty to maintain a safe premises for invitees was limited to the intended use of the premises as part of the invitation.

Here, the bank’s implicit invitation to the plaintiff was limited to accessing its ATM while she remained in her vehicle. The evidence supported that there was nothing to suggest or invite patrons to “walk up” to the ATM, and the bank’s duty was limited to keeping the area safe for motor vehicle traffic only; not for pedestrian traffic.

Because the court found there was no duty, there could be no breach, necessitating summary judgment for the defendant.