Pingel v. McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pingel v. McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc.

698 So. 2d 363, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9460, 1997 WL 473902

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3819

StatusPublished

This text of 698 So. 2d 363 (Pingel v. McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc.) 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

Pingel v. McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc., 698 So. 2d 363, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9460, 1997 WL 473902 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in this slip and fall case. The issue in question is whether the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition of the floor in its restroom where appellant fell, injuring himself. The appellant’s father testified that after his son’s fall and after he had finished his drink, he notified one of the restaurant workers about the floor’s condition. The time between the fall and notification was not substantial. The worker informed him that he was aware of the problem and was planning to have another worker clean it up shortly. This created a material issue of fact as to actual notice.

Although appellant’s father did not notify the worker immediately about the condition and the appellee therefore argued that appellant did not establish that the worker knew about the condition prior to the accident, we think that the evidence can support the inference that the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition at the time of the accident. Where there are various reasonable inferences to be made and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence concerning an issue, the matter should be submitted to a jury for its resolution. See Burroughs Corp. v. American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 450 So.2d 540, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA1984).

Reversed.

WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and DONNER, AMY STEELE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in this slip and fall case. The issue in question is whether the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition of the floor in its restroom where appellant fell, injuring himself. The appellant’s father testified that after his son’s fall and after he had finished his drink, he notified one of the restaurant workers about the floor’s condition. The time between the fall and notification was not substantial. The worker informed him that he was aware of the problem and was planning to have another worker clean it up shortly. This created a material issue of fact as to actual notice.

Although appellant’s father did not notify the worker immediately about the condition and the appellee therefore argued that appellant did not establish that the worker knew about the condition prior to the accident, we think that the evidence can support the inference that the appellee had actual notice of the dangerous condition at the time of the accident. Where there are various reasonable inferences to be made and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence concerning an issue, the matter should be submitted to a jury for its resolution. See Burroughs Corp. v. American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 450 So.2d 540, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA1984).

Reversed.

WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and DONNER, AMY STEELE, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 363, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9460, 1997 WL 473902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pingel-v-mcdonalds-restaurants-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack