Is a “Speck” on a Video Enough to Defeat a Slip-and-Fall Claim in Florida?

Slip and fall injuries often occur in heavily trafficked retail stores like Wal-Mart. Under Florida premises liability law, the store owner can only be held financially responsible for such injuries if the management had either actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard that caused the fall in the first place. For example, if a customer slips and falls on a slippery substance in a store aisle, there must be proof that (a) the store caused the substance to be there, (b) the store knew the substance was there but failed to take corrective action, or (c) the substance was there long enough that the store should have realized it was there by exercising due diligence.

11th Circuit Revives Case Against Wal-Mart

Option (c) is what the law refers to as “constructive notice” or “constructive knowledge.” Proving constructive knowledge usually relies on circumstantial evidence. For example, there may be store surveillance camera footage that can help illustrate how long a spill or hazard was present prior to the victim’s accident. At the same time, such footage may not be clear enough to draw any definitive conclusions, in which case a jury must consider additional evidence.

The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed such a case. In Dorsten v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the plaintiff “slipped on a puddle of clear liquid and fell” while shopping at a Florida Wal-Mart. The plaintiff injured his back in the fall and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against Wal-Mart. The case was heard in federal court applying Florida law.

Before the district (trial) court, the plaintiff and Wal-Mart disagreed over whether there was evidence that the latter had constructive knowledge of the puddle of clear liquid. The plaintiff pointed to photographic evidence suggesting the spill had been present long enough to show “dirty water and drying around the edges.” Furthermore, this particular Wal-Mart “regularly had ceiling leaks and liquid spills,” indicating employees “should have been more vigilant” in keeping an eye out for these kinds of spills.

For its part, Wal-Mart presented evidence from its own surveillance cameras, which it said proved the spill only existed for about 7 minutes prior to the plaintiff’s fall. Wal-Mart insisted the spill was caused by a child sitting in a shopping cart who was holding “something.” A moment later, there was a “speck” on the video, which Wal-Mart said was the spill that caused the plaintiff’s accident.

While the trial court accepted Wal-Mart’s evidence at face value and granted its motion for summary judgment, the 11th Circuit said that was premature. It found the video was “far from clear, leaving many genuine disputes unresolved.” For instance, it was not clear what the child was holding or even if the “speck” was the spill in question. The video was certainly not enough to justify summary judgment, the appellate court said, so it returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Contact a Miami Slip & Fall Lawyer Today

Slip and fall cases may seem simple. But they often involve well-funded corporate defendants who are not afraid to fight a personal injury claim. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Miami skip and fall lawyer who will fight back on your behalf. Contact Pita Weber Del Prado today at 305-670-2889 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11082903914847318398