Thomas Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and The Lewis Bear Company
213 So. 3d 1129
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant tripped and was injured on an empty pallet placed between Winn‑Dixie’s entrance/exit and the parking lot while exiting the store on his third of four trips during a single visit.
- Surveillance video showed Appellant had seen and walked around the pallet on previous passes and took several steps after seeing it before tripping over the pallet itself.
- Appellant sued for negligent failure to warn and negligent failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding the pallet was an open and obvious, non‑inherently dangerous condition and that defendants had no superior knowledge to require a warning.
- The First District affirmed, holding defendants owed no duty to warn and did not breach their duty to maintain the premises because the invitee had observed the condition and could reasonably have avoided it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn of the pallet/pallet jack | Appellant: defendants should have warned of the hazardous placement | Defendants: pallet was open and obvious and plaintiff’s knowledge equaled or exceeded theirs; no duty to warn | No duty to warn; summary judgment affirmed |
| Breach of duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition | Appellant: positioning of pallets/pallet jack near sole entry/exit created a dangerous condition defendants should have corrected | Defendants: pallet was not inherently dangerous and was readily avoidable by an attentive invitee | No breach as a matter of law because condition was open and obvious and plaintiff observed it; summary judgment affirmed |
| Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine where plaintiff observed condition but later tripped | Appellant: prior observation does not bar recovery; jury should decide foreseeability and maintenance duty | Defendants: owner may assume invitee will use ordinary senses to avoid obvious hazards; liability requires foreseeability despite obviousness | Court: where condition is open/obvious and not inherently dangerous (or reasonably avoidable), owner not liable unless should have anticipated harm; here no anticipation, so judgment affirmed |
| Precedent (Owens) on transitory foreign substances | Appellant: cites Owens to argue owners liable for unsafe floor conditions | Defendants: Owens involved unseen transitory foreign substances, not store equipment like pallets | Court: Owens distinguishable; a pallet is not a foreign substance and Earley remains controlling on obvious conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1952) (landowner may assume invitee will perceive what is obvious to ordinary senses)
- Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc., 56 So.3d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (distinguishes object from dangerous condition; summary judgment review standards)
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (transitory foreign substances on floor create rebuttable presumption of failure to maintain)
- McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff knew of protrusion and attempted to step over it)
- Denson v. SM‑Planters Walk Apartments, 183 So.3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (recites two distinct duties: warn of latent dangers and maintain premises)
- Moultrie v. Consolidated Stores Int’l Corp., 764 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reversed summary judgment where plaintiff did not see a pallet; foreseeability was question for jury)
- Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 124 So.3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (no duty to warn for open and obvious, non‑inherently dangerous condition)
- Lomack v. Mowrey, 14 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (an invitee’s knowledge of a danger does not necessarily bar recovery; may implicate comparative negligence)