397 So.3d 205
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2024Background
- Jean Muurahainen, a customer at HomeGoods (operated by The TJX Companies, Inc.), tripped and fell over a low furniture cart left in an aisle by a store employee.
- Muurahainen claimed she did not see the cart before tripping because it was low and partially obscured by merchandise; a store employee testified the cart was not visible from where Muurahainen had conducted her transaction.
- The incident was partially captured on store surveillance video from multiple camera angles; the actual fall occurred outside any camera’s view.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for HomeGoods, finding the hazard to be open and obvious as a matter of law based on the video evidence.
- On appeal, Muurahainen argued there remained a genuine dispute whether the cart was actually open and obvious, pointing to conflicting testimonial and video evidence.
- The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and reversed, finding unresolved issues of material fact remained regarding visibility of the hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cart was an open and obvious hazard | Muurahainen: Cart was not visible or obvious | TJX: Cart was open and obvious on video | Court: Fact issue remains; not open/obvious as matter of law |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Dispute of material fact precludes summary | No genuine dispute; judgment proper | Court: Summary judgment improper; reversed |
| Duties owed to invitees (warn/maintain safe) | Failed to maintain safe condition/warn | No duty to warn of obvious dangers | Court: Duties are distinct; open/obvious issue not conclusively resolved |
| Weight of video evidence versus testimony | Video doesn't duplicate plaintiff’s perspective | Video shows cart was apparent | Court: Video does not conclusively negate testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (de novo standard for summary judgment review)
- City of Melbourne v. Dunn, 841 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (no duty to warn of obvious danger)
- Trainor v. PNC Bank, N.A., 211 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (customer's awareness may be comparative negligence, not bar to liability)
- Baum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 351 So. 3d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (summary judgment evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)