Walker v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
160 So. 3d 909
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff slipped and fell inside a Winn‑Dixie store near the front entrance after returning an electric cart; she described slipping on “unnoticeable” drops of water and testified the misting/rain began about one minute before she reentered.
- Plaintiff could not see water on the floor before the fall and could not establish how long any moisture had been present; she noted dampness on her shoes and wet wheel tracks from the cart after the fall.
- Store manager Williams viewed surveillance video showing two employees inspected the area 2–3 minutes before the accident; the video showed an umbrella bag rack but no mats or cones deployed.
- Winn‑Dixie’s rainy‑day policy calls for umbrella bags, floor mats, and cones when it is raining or appears likely to rain; manager testified presence of the umbrella rack meant it either was or was about to rain.
- Winn‑Dixie moved for summary judgment under Florida Statute §768.0755 (2010) requiring proof of actual or constructive knowledge of a transitory foreign substance; plaintiff proceeded on constructive notice theory only.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, concluding plaintiff failed to show the condition existed long enough for constructive notice; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved constructive knowledge of a transitory foreign substance | The umbrella rack and incomplete rainy‑day measures show the store knew or should have known moisture would be present and thus had constructive notice | There was no evidence the water existed long enough or recurrently; employees inspected area minutes before fall and misting began ~1 minute before incident | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to prove constructive knowledge under §768.0755 |
| Whether a short interval (<4 minutes) between appearance of moisture and fall satisfies statute’s length‑of‑time test | Implicitly argues store should have completed rainy‑day precautions faster, so condition existed long enough for constructive notice | A brief presence (1–4 minutes) is insufficient; inspection occurred ~3 minutes earlier, undermining inference of prolonged condition | Held: brief interval insufficient to establish constructive notice |
| Whether presence of umbrella rack alone creates circumstantial evidence of notice | Plaintiff contends umbrella rack indicates store knew of wet conditions or risk | Store testified rack indicates it was about to rain and does not prove water had been present long enough | Held: umbrella rack alone insufficient to prove constructive notice |
| Whether summary judgment was improper in light of contrasting factual inferences (e.g., active negligence or recurrence) | Relies on inference that store failed to finish safety measures and therefore acted negligently | No evidence of recurring spills, active employee negligence, or prior incidents in that area | Held: summary judgment proper—no genuine issue of material fact supporting constructive notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 127 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 2013) (appellate review requires viewing facts most favorably to nonmoving party)
- Gaidymowicz v. Winn‑Dixie Stores, Inc., 371 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (inspections shortly before fall may preclude inferring prolonged dangerous condition)
- Feris v. Club Country of Fort Walton Beach, Inc., 138 So.3d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (distinguishable: circumstantial evidence of recurring condition and active employee negligence can preclude summary judgment)
- Kenz v. Miami‑Dade County, 116 So.3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (addressing retroactivity of §768.0755)