Summary
reversing and remanding summary judgment in slip-and-fall action in light of Owens as trial court did not have the benefit of Owens
Summary of this case from D'Aquisto v. Costco WholesaleOpinion
Case No. 1D01-134
Opinion filed February 6, 2002.
An appeal from the circuit court for Bay County. N. Russell Bower, Judge.
Russell R. Stewart, Panama City, Attorney for Appellant.
Charles V. Peppler of Vernis Bowling of N.W. Florida, Pensacola, Attorney for Appellee.
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, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S756 (Fla. Nov. 15, 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 rebuttable 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 evidence 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 S762.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.