Deborah Glaze, as Parent etc. v. Kathy Worley, DBA Chick- FIL-A etc.
157 So. 3d 552
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In March 2005 James Glaze (a minor) slipped on a puddle of water in a mall common-area hallway adjacent to a Chick‑fil‑A service door; he and his sister testified the water appeared to come from under the Chick‑fil‑A door.
- Plaintiff sued Chick‑fil‑A (tenant) and the mall owner; the mall owner settled and Chick‑fil‑A moved for summary judgment.
- Chick‑fil‑A argued there was no evidence it had actual or constructive notice of the water or that it acted negligently; plaintiff relied on depositions and an affidavit (stricken as untimely at trial) suggesting the water originated from Chick‑fil‑A’s side of the service door.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chick‑fil‑A; the First DCA reviewed de novo.
- Key legal question concerned which statute governs: pre‑2010 § 768.0710 (no notice element required; negligence in maintenance/mode of operation suffices) or post‑2010 § 768.0755 (plaintiff must prove actual or constructive knowledge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute applies to a 2005 accident? | § 768.0710 applies (no notice element required) | § 768.0755 should control (stricter knowledge requirement) | § 768.0755 is not retroactive; § 768.0710 governs the 2005 accident. |
| Was summary judgment proper given evidence the water came from Chick‑fil‑A? | Glaze: depositions + affidavit permit inference that water originated from area under Chick‑fil‑A control, showing "active" negligence under § 768.0710 | Chick‑fil‑A: no evidence of notice or negligence; summary judgment appropriate | Summary judgment reversed: a reasonable inference of active negligence exists from the record (affidavit + depositions), so material fact issue remains. |
| Does mere presence of a transitory substance create negligence under § 768.0710? | Glaze: presence + origin evidence supports negligence inference | Chick‑fil‑A: mere presence is insufficient; no evidence of failure in maintenance/inspection/mode of operation | Court: mere presence alone is not dispositive, but here evidence permits an inference of negligence because puddle appeared to originate from an area under Chick‑fil‑A control. |
| Should appellate court remand for reconsideration under correct statute and full record? | Implicitly argues trial court should have considered plaintiff evidence and denied summary judgment | Chick‑fil‑A had relied on trial court outcome; may argue decision stands | Court reversed and remanded; concurrence recommends trial court re-evaluate all evidence (including the struck affidavit) under § 768.0710. |
Key Cases Cited
- Futch v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 988 So.2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Laidlaw v. Krystal Co., 53 So.3d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (summary judgment entry only when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966) (burden on movant to show absence of genuine factual issue; inferences drawn for nonmovant)
- Feris v. Club Country of Fort Walton Beach, Inc., 138 So.3d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (distinguishes active employee negligence; discussed retroactivity of § 768.0755)
- Walker v. Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc., 160 So.3d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (affirmed summary judgment where no evidence of active negligence or duration)
- Kenz v. Miami‑Dade County, 116 So.3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (held § 768.0755 could be applied retroactively)
- Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So.3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (held § 768.0755 not retroactive; persuasive reasoning adopted)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (context for knowledge element in slip‑and‑fall law)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (mere presence of water insufficient to establish constructive notice; additional facts required)
- Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So.3d 120 (Fla. 2011) (constitutional limits on retroactive abolition of accrued causes of action)