Hector Garcia v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0010
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0010 Lower Tribunal No. 20-6509 ________________

Hector Garcia, Appellant,

vs.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Shannin Law Firm, P.A., and Nicholas A. Shannin and Dayna Maeder (Orlando), for appellant.

Cosio Law Group, and Eduardo Cosio, Julie Bork Glassman and Luis A. Arguelles, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Hector Garcia, who slipped and fell on an unknown

substance in a store operated by appellee Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

challenges the trial court’s final summary judgment in favor of Winn-Dixie.

We affirm because the summary judgment record was devoid of evidence

that Winn-Dixie had either actual or constructive knowledge of any transitory

foreign substance on the floor of its store.1 We also conclude that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the November 1, 2023

hearing on appellee’s June 20, 2022 summary judgment motion. See

Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“The

discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his

decision fails to satisfy [the] test of reasonableness.”); White v. Discovery

Commc’ns, LLC, 365 So. 3d 379, 385-86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (holding that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to postpone a summary

1 Section 768.0755(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides as follows:

If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that: (a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition[.]

§ 768.0755(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023).

2 judgment hearing for better responses to discovery after there had been

ample time for discovery); see also De Los Angeles v. Winn-Dixie Stores,

Inc., 326 So. 3d 811, 812-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Affirmed.