Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc.
211 So. 3d 275
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Carmen Encarnacion slipped and fell in Palmetto General Hospital emergency-room hallway after seeing a man spraying/cleaning a stretcher and alleged she slipped on spray/liquid.
- Plaintiff initially identified the person as an EMS paramedic and consistently stated the spray from that person caused the fall; testimony later hedged on the person’s identity and described the substance as “oily,” “dirty,” “dark,” and smelling like a cleaner.
- Plaintiff sued the hospital and its contract cleaner, Hospital Housekeeping Systems, Inc.; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of actual or constructive knowledge.
- No evidence in the record (cleaning logs, schedules, employee testimony) established how long the substance had been on the floor or that hospital/housekeeping had notice.
- The hospital showed it had security patrolling and housekeeping assigned 24/7, and the cleaning contract required emergency-department cleaning as needed; the record contained no proof those measures were not performed.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants; the appellate court affirmed, applying Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital had actual or constructive knowledge of transitory hazardous substance | Encarnacion: substance was being sprayed by a person in the hallway (initially identified as EMS), so hospital should have known or foreseen the hazard | Hospital: no evidence it knew; no proof of how long substance was present; security and housekeeping policies in place; statute requires actual or constructive knowledge | Held: No genuine issue — plaintiff failed to show actual knowledge or circumstantial evidence of constructive knowledge under §768.0755; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether contract cleaner (Hospital Housekeeping Systems) is liable under its contractual duties | Encarnacion: housekeeping breached duties to maintain safe premises | Housekeeping: contract obligated routine/AS-NEEDED cleaning; no evidence it failed to perform or had notice; no duty to constantly patrol | Held: No genuine issue — no evidence of breach of contractual cleaning obligations or notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether descriptive testimony about the substance ("oily/dark") creates a timing inference | Encarnacion: discoloration and smell support that substance was on floor long enough to create notice | Defendants: such descriptions alone, without additional facts, cannot reasonably prove the substance had been present long enough | Held: Descriptive testimony without a "plus" (additional facts) insufficient to create a jury issue about duration/constructive knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp., Inc., 964 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA) (summary judgment / material fact definition)
- Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA) (business invitee duty to maintain safe premises)
- McCarthy v. Broward College, 164 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA) (affirming summary judgment where duration of substance on floor was not shown)
- Walker v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 160 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA) (same)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standard)
- Maryland Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA) (contract-based liability for failures in performance)