Whitworth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
This text of 805 So. 2d 1106 (Whitworth v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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.
Opinion
In this slip and fall action, the trial court granted Appellee Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment based on the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. The trial court did not have the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent holding in Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla.2001),
that the existence of a foreign substance on the floor of a business premises that causes a customer to fall and be injured is not a safe condition and the existence of that unsafe condition creates a rebut-table presumption that the premises owner did not maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Thus, once the plaintiff establishes that he or she fell as a result of a transitory foreign substance, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises. At that point, the burden shifts to the defendant to show by the greater weight of evi[1107]*1107dence that it exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises under the circumstances.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for Appellee Wal-Mart to present evidence that it exercised reasonable care in maintaining its premises. Id. at 330-32.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
805 So. 2d 1106, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1125, 2002 WL 181150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitworth-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-fladistctapp-2002.