From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahoney v. Burger King Corporation

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 4, 1992
600 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-776.

June 16, 1992. Rehearing Denied August 4, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Maria M. Korvick, J.

Perse Ginsberg and Rene E. Lamar and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami, for appellant.

Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen Quentel and Byron G. Petersen and Steven S. Goodman, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before FERGUSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.


Summary judgment was appropriate in this slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the store owner had actual or constructive notice of the substance, or that the substance was on the floor as a result of the actions of store employees or agents, or that while the owner did not actually create the specific condition which caused the fall, the method of operation was so inherently dangerous that the store owner may still be held liable. Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 579 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Mahoney v. Burger King Corporation

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 4, 1992
600 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Mahoney v. Burger King Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MARIA DOLORES MAHONEY, APPELLANT, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 4, 1992

Citations

600 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Roman v. City of Miami

We affirm. See May v. Crounse, 598 So.2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA) (landowner under no duty to keep abutting sidewalk…

Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County

In addition, error is urged in a motion in limine ruling finding hearsay in a written statement by an inmate…