233 So.3d 1248
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- On March 7, 2015, Blanca Lago slipped on a liquid at the entrance of a Miami Costco and fractured her knee; she sued Costco for negligence.
- Lago testified (deposition) she did not see the liquid before falling, did not know what it was, did not know how long it had been there, and saw no Costco employees near the area before the fall.
- Costco moved for summary judgment, arguing Lago had no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the transitory substance as required by statute.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Costco; Lago appealed, challenging the unelaborated order and the grant based primarily on her deposition testimony.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and analyzed the case under Florida Statute § 768.0755 (transitory foreign substances), which places the burden on plaintiffs to prove actual or constructive knowledge.
- The court affirmed summary judgment, finding Lago presented only that the floor was wet and she fell, which was insufficient to establish Costco’s actual or constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by issuing an unelaborated summary-judgment order | The order should have stated reasons for granting summary judgment | No rule requires detailed reasons; record and briefing show basis | No error; justification apparent from the record |
| Whether Costco had actual notice of the hazardous liquid | Lago contends employees or management knew of the liquid (implicit) | Lago’s deposition shows she saw no employees and no evidence of actual notice | No genuine issue of material fact as to actual notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Costco had constructive notice under § 768.0755 (transitory substance) | Constructive notice can be shown circumstantially; Lago offered an expert report and weather printout | Costco: Lago’s testimony shows no knowledge of duration, origin, or foreseeability; proffered items were excluded as hearsay/unsworn | No circumstantial evidence of duration or regularity; no constructive notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether excluded documents should have been considered at summary judgment | Lago argued the expert report and weather printout raised issues of fact | Costco argued they were hearsay/unsworn and inadmissible under Rule 1.510 | Documents were properly struck; Lago did not appeal that ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (mere presence of liquid and a fall insufficient to prove constructive notice)
- Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (plaintiff must provide circumstantial evidence of duration or foreseeability to prove constructive notice)
- Walker v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 160 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (discussing § 768.0755 and burden shift to plaintiff in transitory-substance cases)
- McCarthy v. Broward College, 164 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff could not identify liquid or its duration)
- First Union Nat’l Bk. of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (unsworn or unauthenticated documents cannot satisfy summary-judgment evidentiary requirements)