Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc.
56 So. 3d 863
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Rocamonde injured Feb. 2, 2007 tripping over a mobile clothing rack at Marshalls.
- Plaintiff alleged Marshalls failed to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition and/or warned of dangerous conditions.
- Marshalls moved for summary judgment, arguing no notice or that danger was open and obvious.
- Record showed Rocamonde regularly shopped at Marshalls for years; she did not see the rack’s bottom protrusion.
- Marshalls’ employee testified the rack was a mobile Z-rack used to transport merchandise; Rocamonde tripped on a protruding bottom iron.
- Trial court granted summary judgment citing open-and-obvious defense and lack of duty to warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn vs. duty to maintain open hazards | Rocamonde argues hidden hazard triggered duty to warn and maintain. | Marshalls contends open and obvious danger negates duty to warn. | Open-and-obvious does not eliminate duty to maintain |
| Whether bottom protrusion was hidden or open and obvious | protruding base was concealed from Rocamonde’s view | Rack was open and obvious; plaintiff could have observed base | Issue of fact whether protrusion was hidden; not conclusive as a matter of law |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given conflicting evidence | Material facts were disputed; should go to jury | Evidence showed no negligence as matter of law | Reversed and remanded for further fact-finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So.2d 477 (Fla.1952) (open-and-obvious dangers may limit duty to warn)
- Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 2000) (dangerous condition must be open and obvious, not just the object)
- Hildack v. Adventist Health Systems, 673 So.2d 579 (Fla.5th DCA 1996) (inference possible that plaintiff did not see concealed hazard)
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) (summary judgments reviewed de novo; issues of fact require reversal)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985) (summary judgments cautious in negligence cases)