Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc.
65 So. 3d 1087
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Delgado sues Laundromax for negligence as a business invitee; trial court granted summary judgment for Laundromax.
- Delgado slipped on a clear liquid at Laundromax on August 21, 2003, causing injuries.
- Delgado alleges Laundromax negligently maintained the floor by allowing spills and debris and failing to inspect/clean.
- Laundromax contends no actual or constructive notice of the spill and that clear water on the floor cannot establish breach.
- The issue is whether the owner had a duty and breached it, given lack of notice, under Florida law; court reviews de novo and affirms the trial court.
- Statutory burden shift under § 768.0710 (2002) affects who must prove reasonable care and notice; court analyzes in light of this shift.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laundromax owed a duty and breached it by wet floor. | Delgado argues owner failed to keep premises reasonably safe. | Laundromax had no actual or constructive notice; no breach proven. | No breach; no notice shown; no unreasonable maintenance established. |
| Whether Delgado proved actual or constructive notice of the spill. | Delgado contends notice can be inferred from spill existence. | No evidence of actual notice; no constructive notice shown. | No actual or constructive notice proven. |
| Whether negligent mode of operation supports liability under § 768.0710(2)(b). | Delgado argues negligent mode of operation could establish liability. | No evidence of negligent operation; plaintiff did not pursue discovery on this theory. | Negligent mode of operation not supported by record; not basis for reversal. |
| Effect of the statutory burden shift under § 768.0710 on proof of negligence. | (Not explicitly required beyond notice) | Statute allows consideration of notice but places burden on plaintiff to prove negligence. | Under the statute, the burden reinforced but still requires proof of negligence; no proof found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (burden on premises owner to prove reasonable care under prior rule; statute shifted burden to plaintiff later (768.0710))
- Westchester Exxon v. Valdes, 524 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (elements of negligence; duty and breach standards for premises liability)
- Broz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 546 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (mere presence of liquid does not establish constructive notice)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. White, 675 So.2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (additional facts required to support constructive notice)
- Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (evidence of longer-ago condition may support notice in some contexts)
- Vermeulen v. Worldwide Holidays, Inc., 922 So.2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (affirming summary judgment; mere accident does not imply negligence)