Cathy Suker and Johnny Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership and PSL Donuts, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cathy Suker and Johnny Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership and PSL Donuts, LLC

193 So. 3d 1028, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2016 WL 3182672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket4D15-1350

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 So. 3d 1028 (Cathy Suker and Johnny Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership and PSL Donuts, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cathy Suker and Johnny Suker v. White Family Limited Partnership and PSL Donuts, LLC, 193 So. 3d 1028, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2016 WL 3182672 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal stems from a slip and fall accident that occurred in front of a Dunkin Donuts operated by defendant PSL Donuts, LLC. The plaintiffs, Cathy and Johnny Suker, appeal the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. 1 The trial court granted summary judgment based on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013), finding that the plaintiffs *1029 failed to present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions or that the dangerous conditions occurred with regularity and were therefore foreseeable. We reverse.

“A trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “In reviewing a summary judgment, [the court] must consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment must be reversed.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So.3d 904, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So.3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

In this case, where plaintiffs filed the depositions of three witnesses, including the deposition of an employee of the defendant, that tended to show the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous conditions that existed at the tiled entrance to the establishment when the tile was . wet, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remained and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. We also find the defendant’s alternative arguments for affirming the summary judgment to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

1

. The plaintiffs do not appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of White Family Limited Partnership,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal stems from a slip and fall accident that occurred in front of a Dunkin Donuts operated by defendant PSL Donuts, LLC. The plaintiffs, Cathy and Johnny Suker, appeal the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. 1 The trial court granted summary judgment based on Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2013), finding that the plaintiffs *1029 failed to present any genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous conditions or that the dangerous conditions occurred with regularity and were therefore foreseeable. We reverse.

“A trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “In reviewing a summary judgment, [the court] must consider all record evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. If material facts are at issue and the slightest doubt exists, summary judgment must be reversed.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So.3d 904, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Mills v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 So.3d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)).

In this case, where plaintiffs filed the depositions of three witnesses, including the deposition of an employee of the defendant, that tended to show the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous conditions that existed at the tiled entrance to the establishment when the tile was . wet, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact remained and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. We also find the defendant’s alternative arguments for affirming the summary judgment to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

1

. The plaintiffs do not appeal the summary judgment entered in favor of White Family Limited Partnership,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 3d 1028, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2016 WL 3182672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cathy-suker-and-johnny-suker-v-white-family-limited-partnership-and-psl-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack