Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2079 Lower Tribunal No. 20-14464-CA-01 ________________
Miami-Dade County, Appellant,
vs.
Michelle Martin, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Richard Schevis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
William C. Robinson, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
GORDO, J. Miami-Dade County (“County”) appeals a final judgment entered in
favor of Michelle Martin (“Martin”), as well as an order denying its post-trial
motion to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accordance with its
prior motion for directed verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial (“post-trial
motion”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse
and remand with instructions.
I.
On May 24, 2019, Martin and three friends were walking home from a
dinner party in downtown Miami. During the walk, Martin stepped into and
fell through an uncovered County-owned water meter box. She did not take
any photographs the night of the incident and went to the emergency room
the following morning for treatment.
On May 26, 2019, Martin returned to the site and took a photograph of
the water meter box, which was then covered and cracked. In July 2019,
Martin again returned to the site, removed the cover and took several
photographs of the water meter box, one of which shows brown leaves
inside. There was no evidence indicating when or how the leaves entered
the water meter box.
A year later, Martin filed the underlying action against the County for
negligently maintaining the water meter cover. Before trial, the County filed
2 a motion in limine to exclude the July photographs. The court granted the
motion in part but admitted the photograph showing the brown leaves.
At trial,1 Martin called the Water and Sewer Department’s customer
service manager, who testified that meter readers are trained to inspect the
boxes they service. She also called two water meter readers—one testified
he typically read between 60 and 800 meters per day, while the other testified
he read between 300 and 500 meters daily. She further presented the
testimony of the chief of water meter installation for the Miami-Dade Water
and Sewer Department, who testified there were no records of complaints,
repairs, or inspections for the subject meter box before her accident.
At the close of Martin’s case, the County moved for a directed verdict,
arguing that Martin failed to present sufficient evidence showing the County
had actual or constructive notice of the missing cover and that her claims
were based on improper inference stacking. The trial court denied the
motion.
During its case-in-chief, the County called a claims administrator and
a customer service representative from the Water and Sewer Department.
The administrator—who handles claims and inspects water meter boxes—
1 Martin testified on her own behalf but did not call any of her friends as witnesses.
3 testified that water meter boxes often contain leaves, which can enter
through the sides of the lids when the lid is properly on or when the cover is
removed. The customer service representative testified that monthly and
quarterly reports for the water meters in the area of the incident showed no
missing covers prior to the event. 2
At the close of its case, the County renewed its motion for a directed
verdict. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding no evidence of
actual notice but denied it as to constructive notice. The jury ultimately found
in Martin’s favor and awarded her $200,000. 3
Following the verdict, the County filed its post-trial motion, again
asserting that Martin had failed to present sufficient evidence that it had
constructive notice of the uncovered water meter box that caused her fall.
The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
II.
“An order on a motion for directed verdict and for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed de novo.” Hernandez v. Mishali, 319
So. 3d 753, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
2 On cross-examination, the representative acknowledged the reports did not include the specific meter boxes where the incident occurred. 3 The jury found Martin 10% at fault.
4 III.
The County argues the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motion
because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding
of constructive notice without relying on improper inference stacking. We
agree.
“In order for a plaintiff to recover for injuries received in a slip and fall,
the plaintiff must show that the defendant responsible for the premises had
actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.” Wilson-Greene v.
City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Maryland
Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
“Constructive notice may be shown by presenting evidence that the condition
existed for such a length of time that in exercise of ordinary care, the
defendant should have known of the condition, or by showing that the
condition [sic] occurred with regularity and, consequently, was foreseeable.”
Id. at 1274-75 (emphasis added).
Here, Martin concedes the County did not have actual notice of the
condition that caused her fall. With respect to constructive notice, she
asserts that such notice was established by the July photograph—taken two
months after the incident—depicting brown leaves inside the water meter
box. This photograph alone provides no evidence that the alleged
5 condition—a missing water meter cover—existed for a sufficient length of
time before Martin’s fall without relying on impermissible stacking of
inferences. In order to conclude that the County had constructive notice of
a possible missing water meter cover before Martin’s accident, the jury would
need to draw, at a minimum, the following inferences: (1) the leaves shown
in the July photograph entered the water meter box while the cover was
missing; (2) the leaves were initially green when they entered the box; (3)
the leaves did not enter the box when the lid was on; (4) the leaves entered
the box prior to Martin’s fall; (5) the leaves were inside the box at the time of
the fall; and (6) a reasonably diligent inspection by the County would have
revealed the missing cover before the accident occurred. This is an
impermissible stacking of inference upon inference, which cannot be relied
upon to establish constructive notice. See Tallahassee Med. Ctr., Inc. v.
Kemp, 324 So. 3d 14, 16-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Plaintiffs may not stack
inferences upon a debatable inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.
Instead, a directed verdict should issue for a defendant if a plaintiff relies
upon circumstantial evidence to establish a fact, fails to do so to the
exclusion of all other reasonable inferences, but then stacks further
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2079 Lower Tribunal No. 20-14464-CA-01 ________________
Miami-Dade County, Appellant,
vs.
Michelle Martin, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Richard Schevis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
William C. Robinson, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
GORDO, J. Miami-Dade County (“County”) appeals a final judgment entered in
favor of Michelle Martin (“Martin”), as well as an order denying its post-trial
motion to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accordance with its
prior motion for directed verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial (“post-trial
motion”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse
and remand with instructions.
I.
On May 24, 2019, Martin and three friends were walking home from a
dinner party in downtown Miami. During the walk, Martin stepped into and
fell through an uncovered County-owned water meter box. She did not take
any photographs the night of the incident and went to the emergency room
the following morning for treatment.
On May 26, 2019, Martin returned to the site and took a photograph of
the water meter box, which was then covered and cracked. In July 2019,
Martin again returned to the site, removed the cover and took several
photographs of the water meter box, one of which shows brown leaves
inside. There was no evidence indicating when or how the leaves entered
the water meter box.
A year later, Martin filed the underlying action against the County for
negligently maintaining the water meter cover. Before trial, the County filed
2 a motion in limine to exclude the July photographs. The court granted the
motion in part but admitted the photograph showing the brown leaves.
At trial,1 Martin called the Water and Sewer Department’s customer
service manager, who testified that meter readers are trained to inspect the
boxes they service. She also called two water meter readers—one testified
he typically read between 60 and 800 meters per day, while the other testified
he read between 300 and 500 meters daily. She further presented the
testimony of the chief of water meter installation for the Miami-Dade Water
and Sewer Department, who testified there were no records of complaints,
repairs, or inspections for the subject meter box before her accident.
At the close of Martin’s case, the County moved for a directed verdict,
arguing that Martin failed to present sufficient evidence showing the County
had actual or constructive notice of the missing cover and that her claims
were based on improper inference stacking. The trial court denied the
motion.
During its case-in-chief, the County called a claims administrator and
a customer service representative from the Water and Sewer Department.
The administrator—who handles claims and inspects water meter boxes—
1 Martin testified on her own behalf but did not call any of her friends as witnesses.
3 testified that water meter boxes often contain leaves, which can enter
through the sides of the lids when the lid is properly on or when the cover is
removed. The customer service representative testified that monthly and
quarterly reports for the water meters in the area of the incident showed no
missing covers prior to the event. 2
At the close of its case, the County renewed its motion for a directed
verdict. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding no evidence of
actual notice but denied it as to constructive notice. The jury ultimately found
in Martin’s favor and awarded her $200,000. 3
Following the verdict, the County filed its post-trial motion, again
asserting that Martin had failed to present sufficient evidence that it had
constructive notice of the uncovered water meter box that caused her fall.
The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.
II.
“An order on a motion for directed verdict and for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed de novo.” Hernandez v. Mishali, 319
So. 3d 753, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
2 On cross-examination, the representative acknowledged the reports did not include the specific meter boxes where the incident occurred. 3 The jury found Martin 10% at fault.
4 III.
The County argues the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motion
because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding
of constructive notice without relying on improper inference stacking. We
agree.
“In order for a plaintiff to recover for injuries received in a slip and fall,
the plaintiff must show that the defendant responsible for the premises had
actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.” Wilson-Greene v.
City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Maryland
Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
“Constructive notice may be shown by presenting evidence that the condition
existed for such a length of time that in exercise of ordinary care, the
defendant should have known of the condition, or by showing that the
condition [sic] occurred with regularity and, consequently, was foreseeable.”
Id. at 1274-75 (emphasis added).
Here, Martin concedes the County did not have actual notice of the
condition that caused her fall. With respect to constructive notice, she
asserts that such notice was established by the July photograph—taken two
months after the incident—depicting brown leaves inside the water meter
box. This photograph alone provides no evidence that the alleged
5 condition—a missing water meter cover—existed for a sufficient length of
time before Martin’s fall without relying on impermissible stacking of
inferences. In order to conclude that the County had constructive notice of
a possible missing water meter cover before Martin’s accident, the jury would
need to draw, at a minimum, the following inferences: (1) the leaves shown
in the July photograph entered the water meter box while the cover was
missing; (2) the leaves were initially green when they entered the box; (3)
the leaves did not enter the box when the lid was on; (4) the leaves entered
the box prior to Martin’s fall; (5) the leaves were inside the box at the time of
the fall; and (6) a reasonably diligent inspection by the County would have
revealed the missing cover before the accident occurred. This is an
impermissible stacking of inference upon inference, which cannot be relied
upon to establish constructive notice. See Tallahassee Med. Ctr., Inc. v.
Kemp, 324 So. 3d 14, 16-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Plaintiffs may not stack
inferences upon a debatable inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.
Instead, a directed verdict should issue for a defendant if a plaintiff relies
upon circumstantial evidence to establish a fact, fails to do so to the
exclusion of all other reasonable inferences, but then stacks further
inferences upon it to establish [negligence]. This rule against stacking
inferences protects litigants from verdicts based on conjecture and
6 speculation. Based on the evidence in this case, the jury would have had to
rely on improperly stacked inferences to find the Medical Center negligent.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
While Martin cites internal County policies requiring inspection of water
meter boxes, she offered no evidence regarding how long the defective
condition—the missing water meter cover—existed prior to her fall. Leaves
found months later do not establish they were present at the time of her fall
so as to place the County on notice that the condition had existed for a
“sufficient length of time.” Because Martin presented no evidence in support
of the existence of constructive notice to warrant submission of the issue to
the jury, we find the trial court erred in denying the County’s motion for
directed verdict. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 733 (Fla.
1960) (“[I]f a party to a civil action depends upon the inferences to be drawn
from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further
inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless
it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to the
exclusion of all other reasonable inferences.”); see also Miami-Dade Cnty. v.
Hoyos, 874 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“In a claim for negligence
against a local government for failure to keep its streets and walkways in a
reasonably safe condition, a plaintiff must show that the local government
7 knew, or had a reasonable cause to know, of the defective condition a
sufficient length of time so that it could have been repaired. Generally, the
issue of constructive notice is best left to a jury when there is evidence
presented in support of the existence of such notice. We find the plaintiff’s
evidence herein sufficient to warrant submission of the issue to the jury.”);
Grier v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 660 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“While
the County is responsible for damages resulting from a defect which has
been in existence for so long that a reasonable inspection would reveal it,
the County is entitled to [a] judgment where it has no actual or constructive
notice of the defect.”). 4
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment under review and remand
with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the County.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
4 To the extent Martin argues that problems with meter box lids occurred with “regularity” and were therefore foreseeable, the water meter reader she called provided unrefuted testimony that he “rarely” encountered a water meter box with a missing lid. There was no evidence at trial suggesting that missing lids were a routine or recurring issue.