Jacqueline Struck v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
21-11102
| 11th Cir. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- On Sept. 28, 2015, Jacqueline Struck slipped and fell on a puddle of water inside a Walmart during heavy rain; she did not see the puddle before the fall.
- Struck sued Walmart in July 2019 (state court); Walmart removed to federal court; district court granted summary judgment for Walmart.
- Central legal question: whether Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge of the puddle under Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 governing transitory foreign substances.
- Evidence: a post-fall photograph of the puddle; post-accident roof reports and a contractor list identifying roof leaks and a “failing” roof; no Walmart employee testified they saw the puddle before the fall; area had a roof repair four months earlier.
- Struck’s theories: (1) actual knowledge via store-wide roof-leak reports, (2) constructive notice inferred from puddle size or recurring leaks in rain, (3) negligent maintenance/negligent mode-of-operation, and (4) expert opinion that Walmart violated standards for roof/floor maintenance.
- The district court found no actual or constructive notice; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Struck failed to raise a genuine factual dispute on notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual knowledge of the puddle | Walmart knew the roof leaked generally, so it had actual notice of puddles | Knowledge of roof problems ≠ knowledge of this specific puddle; no employee saw the puddle | No actual knowledge; roof reports postdate/are insufficient to show employee knowledge of this puddle. |
| Constructive notice — existed long enough | Size of puddle implies it had been present long enough for Walmart to discover it | Only a post-fall photo; no evidence how long puddle existed and no employee observed it | No constructive notice under the “existed long enough” theory; plaintiff failed to show duration. |
| Constructive notice — regularity/foreseeability | Store’s history of leaks in rain supports inference that wet floors were regular/foreseeable | No evidence that this area was a known slip-and-fall area or prone to recurrent leaks | No constructive notice under the “regularity” theory; unlike precedent, no specific record showing area was a known wet spot. |
| Negligent mode of operation / roof-maintenance claim | Walmart’s failure to maintain roof created the hazard; mode-of-operation claim can proceed without proving notice | Current Florida statute requires proof of notice for transitory foreign substances; negligent-mode theory is not available to avoid notice requirement | Rejects independent negligent-mode theory for slip-and-fall under current § 768.0755; plaintiff still must prove notice. |
| Relevance of plaintiff’s expert | Expert shows Walmart breached maintenance standards, supporting negligence | Expert opinion did not address whether Walmart had notice of the puddle | Court properly discounted the expert for failing to provide evidence that Walmart had notice of the dangerous condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seamon v. Remington Arms Co., 813 F.3d 983 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment inferences for nonmovant)
- Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2007) (elements of negligence under Florida law)
- Barbour v. Brinker Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 953 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (actual knowledge requires owner/employee awareness or creation of hazard)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (presence of water alone insufficient to establish constructive notice)
- Doudeau v. Target Corp., [citation="572 F. App'x 970"] (11th Cir. 2014) (constructive notice inference where area was known slip-and-fall location)
- Oliver v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 291 So. 3d 126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (burden-shifting at summary judgment on constructive knowledge)
- Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (under current statute plaintiff cannot proceed on negligent-maintenance theory without proving notice)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (common-law duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain premises safe)