Tallent v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
137 So. 3d 616
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Tallent slipped on a diesel fuel spill at Pilot in Punta Gorda, Florida on January 22, 2007, alleging negligent maintenance.
- Pilot answered that the spill was open and obvious and that cleanup procedures were followed; the trial court granted summary judgment for Pilot.
- The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo and requires no genuine issue of material fact for judgment as a matter of law.
- Tallent, a business invitee, is owed a duty to maintain premises reasonably safe and a duty to warn of dangers unknown to invitees that cannot be discovered through reasonable care.
- Tallent testified he noticed the spill and saw only trash cans blocking aisles; the record shows disagreement about the spill size and containment.
- There is evidence the spill extended past pumps and into paths of customers; the evidence does not conclusively prove Pilot had no duty to maintain reasonably safe premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to maintain premises reasonably safe vs duty to warn | Pilot failed to maintain a reasonably safe premises for Tallent. | Spill was open and obvious; warnings were not required because Tallent knew of the spill. | Material issue of fact remains; summary judgment reversed on maintenance issue. |
| Whether Pilot had a duty to warn given Tallent's knowledge of the spill | Tallent's knowledge does not absolve Pilot of potential liability for negligent maintenance. | No duty to warn since Tallent knew about the spill. | Question of warning vs maintenance remains; not dispositive on summary judgment. |
| Effect of conflicting evidence on whether Pilot followed cleanup procedures | Employee testimony confirms large spill and inadequate containment; procedures not followed. | Pilot followed routine procedures; testimony is uncertain. | Disputed facts regarding cleanup procedures prevent summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolford v. Ostenbridge, 861 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (two duties to invitee: maintain premises and warn of known dangers)
- Emmons v. Baptist Hosp., 478 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (prima facie duty to warn requires owner knowledge superior to invitee)
- Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (plaintiff's knowledge of a danger does not negate liability; raises comparative negligence issue)
- Knight v. Wattman, 774 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (discharge of duty to warn does not necessarily discharge duty to maintain premises)
- Fenster v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 785 So.2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (open-and-obvious danger does not automatically bar liability; tailored analysis required)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) (summary judgment standard and standards of review)
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So.2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (slip-and-fall negligence burden on moving party is onerous)
- Mar-Elia v. Yanchuk, Berman, Wadley & Zervos, P.A., 966 So.2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (summary judgment burden in Florida requires no genuine issue of material fact)