De Cruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Market, Inc.
117 So. 3d 885
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Paulette De Cruz-Haymer sued Bravo Supermarkets after tripping on a mat at the store’s sole public entrance and suffering multiple injuries.
- Witness Linden Haymer saw an employee lay the mat immediately before he left; he observed the mat was not flat and not affixed and stepped over a “hump.”
- Paulette testified her foot “hooked” the mat as she exited and she fell; a store supervisor allegedly admitted the fall was Bravo’s fault.
- Bravo moved for summary judgment solely on the ground the mat was an open and obvious condition; the trial court granted summary judgment for Bravo.
- On appeal, Paulette argued the open-and-obvious nature of the mat may negate a duty to warn but does not relieve Bravo of its independent duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mat’s dangerous condition was open and obvious | Haymer acknowledged the mat and its uneven, unsecured condition existed and was observable | Bravo argued the mat’s condition was open and obvious as a matter of law, precluding liability | Court: The mat’s dangerous condition was open and obvious — no genuine factual dispute on that point |
| Whether an open-and-obvious danger bars all premises-liability claims (including failure to maintain) | Haymer argued open-and-obvious only discharges duty to warn; duty to maintain remains and raises factual issues (anticipation of harm, comparative negligence) | Bravo argued open-and-obvious doctrine precludes liability entirely | Court: Open-and-obvious discharges duty to warn but does not discharge duty to maintain; summary judgment improperly entered on all claims and must be reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So.3d 905 (discussing de novo review and summary judgment standard)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574 (explaining the obvious danger doctrine and anticipation exception)
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309 (authority on open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Brady v. State Paving Corp., 693 So.2d 612 (distinguishing object visibility from obvious dangerous condition)
- Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732 (holding duty to maintain separate from duty to warn)
- Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So.3d 697 (same principle: obvious danger does not eliminate duty to maintain)
- Fieldhouse v. Tam Inv. Co., 959 So.2d 1214 (obvious condition raises factual issues, including comparative negligence)