Miami-Dade County v. Jones
16-2266
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Wanda Jones slipped on grease on a County-owned sidewalk adjacent to a privately operated barbecue stand and sued the County and the Sports Club for negligence.
- Jones conceded the County did not cause the spill and had no actual knowledge of the grease; her theory was constructive notice based on prior occurrences or visible discoloration.
- A jury allocated liability 50% to the Sports Club, 50% to the County, and 0% to Jones; the County moved for directed verdict/JNOV/new trial, which the trial court denied.
- At trial Jones introduced photographs of sidewalk discoloration, evidence of periodic County inspections, County ordinances regulating food establishments, and testimony that some stand operators were off-duty County bus drivers.
- The County appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of constructive notice and that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial evidence (ordinances and off-duty employee testimony).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive notice of grease spill | Discoloration photos and repeated presence of County inspectors show recurring spills County should have known about | No evidence of prior spills or complaints; no proof grease occurred before the accident | Reversed: Jones failed to prove constructive notice; judgment for County required |
| Relevance of County ordinances | Ordinances show County’s role in inspecting/regulating food establishments and support notice | Ordinances do not prove notice and are barred as basis for liability because of sovereign immunity | Error to admit: ordinances irrelevant to notice and prejudicial; limiting instruction exacerbated confusion |
| Testimony about off-duty County bus drivers operating stand | Shows County-affiliated actors present; supports inference County knew or should have known | Irrelevant; off-duty employees not acting within scope; unfair prejudice and risk jury imputes employer liability | Error to admit: testimony irrelevant and prejudicial; could imply improper liability theory |
| Trial court’s denial of post-trial motions | Jury verdict and evidence supported denial | Insufficient evidence as matter of law for County liability; evidentiary errors required reversal/new trial or JNOV | Court finds denial of post-trial motions erroneous; reverses and directs entry of judgment for County |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (premises owners owe invitees duty to maintain safe premises)
- Wilson-Greene v. City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (plaintiff must show defendant had actual or constructive notice)
- Maryland Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (notice requirement in slip-and-fall cases)
- Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (discussing notice in premises liability)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (constructive knowledge inferred from time substance was on floor or frequency of occurrence)
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985) (sovereign immunity bars liability for failure to enforce ordinances)
- Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (standard of review for JNOV/directed verdict)
- Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and new trial)
- Padilla v. Buell, 797 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (standard for review of new trial/evidentiary matters)